Review, Verification, and Accountability
Bullshit Centrifuge is the public name for this program’s connected review, proof, trace, collision, consequence, and revision architecture. The older names remain visible as functions and provenance, not competing products.
Status · Active research
Can model-assisted review expose weak support, overreach, and uncertainty without pretending to supply independent verification?
Why the question matters
Fluent language can make an unsupported claim look settled. Publication requires a way to separate useful scrutiny, source tracing, deterministic checks, and genuinely independent evidence.
How the investigation began
The work began with large arguments and public claims that needed more than summary or reassurance. It developed into bounded review modes and claim-governance surfaces.
Human–LLM collaboration method
The human supplies the text, purpose, and publication standard. The model applies a constrained review frame. Evidence access, scope, and uncertainty are then inspected explicitly rather than hidden behind a verdict.
Bullshit Centrifuge architecture
- Bullshit Centrifuge — the complete public architecture
- Review surface — historical name: Review Lab
- Proof and authority gate — historical name: ProofGate
- Choice trace
- Seeing loop — consequence and recurrence
- Collision — the pressure event inside the architecture
Verified accomplishments
- Review Lab provides a working structured editorial review interface.
- ProofGate separates evidence, authority, scope, and review state in bounded surfaces.
- Deterministic checks can identify some missing or malformed support conditions.
Current hostile-review results
- The Codex rollout paper scored 7.4/10. Its missing joint compaction/image test was added and survived; its runtime SIGKILL claim was downgraded to an open hypothesis.
- The agent-incident draft scored 6.5/10. Its causal-paper form was withdrawn and split into a sourced article and a falsifiable protocol.
What has not been demonstrated
No model-on-model review in this work is treated as independent evidence. Neither project proves correctness, replaces source verification, or supplies professional legal, medical, financial, or academic authority.
Failures, ambiguity, and competing explanations
Review Lab cannot read every source form and can only judge evidence it can access. A consistent second model may repeat the same assumptions. Deterministic gates can test declared rules, not every truth condition.
Selected articles
Selected podcasts
These episodes show continuity in the questions; they do not validate the software experiments.
- Isaac Newton – The Father of Gravity
- Charles Darwin – Father of Natural Selection and Evolution
- Fritz Haber – Bread from Air, Poison from Science
Current position
Structured review can make uncertainty and overreach easier to see. It is review assistance, not final authority.
Open questions
- Which review findings remain stable across models and prompts?
- What evidence would qualify as independent verification for each claim type?
Next bounded test
Run one predeclared claim packet through both systems and compare source access, deterministic findings, model judgments, and human corrections separately.