Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectOct 24, 2026Kiel, Germany

Evidence Conflicts Before Verdicts

Flamur Koca · Team QENDROVA

Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Evidence Conflicts Before Verdicts

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
More on drive.google.com (opens in new tab)
Share

Across three synthetic inputs and six archived model responses, an equal-authority evidence conflict was incorrectly classified as valid under both a full task and a validity-only task. Post-hoc suppression withheld both incorrect conflict responses but reduced coverage and left other errors visible. Correct conflict rejections were absent from that archive, so their loss rate is unknown. A constructed routing demonstration exposed two correct conflict mentions alongside four false sentence units and one unsupported claim in a blocked review channel. A pre-sprint certificate check supported three known open judgments and rejected three defective controls. A separately authorized 23 October offline restart evaluated six synthetic views prepared for an earlier technically aborted attempt. Four source-bound, manually AI-typed in-scope mappings yielded 16 reference-matching labels, including three open judgments with compatible opposite-valued witnesses. Two further views were stopped by manual scope decisions. A separate 24 October language-transfer exercise used six new prose cases, prepared on 23 October, in the same two contexts. Four in-scope mappings produced 16 reference-matching labels and five open axes with opposing compatible witnesses; two manual scope stops were supported. Neither exercise establishes general transfer, automatic extraction, model improvement, or collusion detection. There is no independent holdout or human reference validation. Source authority and completeness are stipulated. The original abort remains documented. Earlier diagnostics and checks are pre-sprint work; both transfer exercises are dated sprint-period work. Sanitized L01-L06 reading evidence is now available as L1; the V01-V06 restart records remain local.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Evidence Conflicts Before Verdicts”

Your public critique appears on the project page without your name. Reviews of strong projects are shared with funders, as you choose below.

Not shown on the project page.

Shown on the project page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Decline to score

Only when the quality of the writing makes the work impossible to follow. Say why in your private critique; the project page shows only that a judge declined, not why.

How much would this matter for the field if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.
Sharing your name *

When we share a strong project with funders, your name, scores and public critique go with it, confidentially; this choice is only about whether your name is public. If you think this project deserves funding, please also endorse it: that carries the most weight.

Share my private critique with funders *

See our Privacy Policy.

No public critique yet.

Cite this project

@misc{koca2026evidence,
  title = {{Evidence Conflicts Before Verdicts}},
  author = {Flamur Koca},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/evidence-conflicts-before-verdicts-zmjz}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/evidence-conflicts-before-verdicts-zmjz}
}

More from AI Collusion Research Sprint

All 394 entriesBrowse all projects

A Sprint is running now

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026