Human comprehension gate
Sensitive public claims should require human comprehension checks before promotion.
v3.108.0 · review scaling · cohort planning
A static public-safe proposal for human comprehension gates, forced-choice recognition, confusion matrix planning, simulated cohort triage, and escalation rules.
Sensitive public claims should require human comprehension checks before promotion.
Forced-choice tasks can help detect whether labels are understood or confused with neighboring concepts.
Confusion matrices can show which semantic distinctions need revision before public promotion.
Different cohorts can interpret the same symbol or claim differently; variance should increase review burden.
LLM proxy reviewers may help triage cases, but simulated agents do not replace human authority.
Human review is required for sensitive promotion, certification-adjacent language, or authority ambiguity.
No-op and human-review triggers must fire when evidence is missing, authority is ambiguous, or caveats cannot be preserved.
{
"planningStatus": "static-proposal",
"cohortTypes": [
"developer",
"reviewer",
"restricted-agent",
"domain-expert",
"public-reader"
],
"humanReviewAuthority": true,
"simulatedAgentsReplaceHumans": false,
"boundary": "triage-only-not-final-approval"
}This is a static explanatory example, not live telemetry, not runtime evidence, and not certification.
{
"sourceDomain": "Teleodynamic.com",
"role": "philosophical-fulcrum",
"notRuntimeAuthority": true,
"notCertificationAuthority": true,
"notConsciousnessClaim": true,
"notBiologicalEquivalenceClaim": true,
"noOpRule": "Do not widen unsupported claims. Ask for human review when evidence is missing or authority is ambiguous."
}Deep route polish
A static public-safe proposal for human comprehension gates, forced-choice recognition, confusion matrix planning, simulated cohort triage, and escalation rules.
| Focus | What to inspect |
|---|
This page remains bounded to public-safe route content.