← Back to /admin

README.md

audits/README.md · 3,019 bytes

Audits — Content-Honesty Track

Derived-view audits that verify descriptions, tags, and cross-references match what source posts actually say. Catches classifier drift, rank inflation, and surface-keyword matching (L29 trap).

Why this exists

Targets (what we audit)

Target Population Sample size Schedule
tier1 10 Tier 1 study-guide entries 9 (all blog posts; entry #1 is the PDF white paper, skipped) monthly
wisdom-rank9plus 58 insights at impact_rank ≥9 20 monthly
blog-tags 794 tagged blog posts 15 random monthly
topic-crossrefs 10 topic files × ~30 posts each 5/topic × 2 topics quarterly, rotating topics

How to run


# Generate sample inputs (deterministic by date seed)
python3 scripts/audit-sample.py --target tier1
python3 scripts/audit-sample.py --target wisdom-rank9plus
python3 scripts/audit-sample.py --target blog-tags
python3 scripts/audit-sample.py --target topic-crossrefs --topics bitcoin-protocol,law-governance

# Then spawn 4 Explore agents (parallel), one per target.
# Each gets the sample JSON + the prompt criteria from audits/PROMPTS.md.
# Each reads source post content and writes a JSON + MD audit result.
# Finally, write a YYYY-MM-DD-summary.md roll-up.

Why the evaluation isn't automated

Per L29: if you auto-evaluate "does this description match this post?" with keyword overlap or embedding similarity, you rebuild the exact bug the audit is designed to catch. Reading the post and judging whether the description is honest requires understanding structure and argument — that's the whole point. Agents or humans do this step.

The sampling is automated (deterministic by date seed). The judgment is not.

What to do with findings

History