Run step
Step 6: tool results
add_argument
Input
{
"name": "The argument from the two dominant evaluation modes",
"stance": "for",
"claim_id": "6d318e34-dfe2-4f86-a5d8-d7f71179125d",
"description": "Existing evaluations are either narrow verifiable benchmarks, which exclude open-ended research, or blind peer review of AI papers, which is noisy and low-quality; so neither measures open-ended research ability well."
}{"success":true,"message":"Created argument \"The argument from the two dominant evaluation modes\" (for) on claim 6d318e34-dfe2-4f86-a5d8-d7f71179125d. Attach its subclaim edges, then give it a written form with write_argument, and evaluate it with evaluate_argument when you record the claim's assessment.","argument_id":"78417b48-ecf9-4ae4-b901-0e87ae9735ea"}add_argument
Input
{
"name": "The argument from expert-graded and long-horizon evaluations",
"stance": "against",
"claim_id": "6d318e34-dfe2-4f86-a5d8-d7f71179125d",
"description": "Some current evaluations (expert-graded research tasks, long-horizon agentic benchmarks, replication benchmarks) do capture meaningful parts of research ability, so the measurement gap is partial rather than wholesale."
}{"success":true,"message":"Created argument \"The argument from expert-graded and long-horizon evaluations\" (against) on claim 6d318e34-dfe2-4f86-a5d8-d7f71179125d. Attach its subclaim edges, then give it a written form with write_argument, and evaluate it with evaluate_argument when you record the claim's assessment.","argument_id":"fc83eb5b-1cc1-40c8-ab78-e935d7ba7656"}