kaal:claim:7456999-030

The paper's remaining residue is a combination rather than a primitive, and it is not compared with the nearest sequential peer-prediction, prediction-market, staking, or debate mechanisms.

Even that residue is a combination rather than a primitive, and the paper does not clear it against the mechanisms nearest to it. Sequential peer prediction, prediction markets with a revision stage, staking and slashing designs from distributed consensus, and iterated debate all combine a free elicitation stage with a costly commitment stage in some form, and this paper does not compare against any of them.

Wulf A. Kaal, Reinforcement Learning from Reputation Feedback (2026), II.D The Nearest Literatures, and What Is Left Over, p. 10
https://ssrn.com/abstract=7456999 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, Reinforcement Learning from Reputation Feedback (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7456999

• the novelty claim remaining after the paper's literature concessions

failuresupport: assertedresearch-methodsai-and-agentseconomics

The quote above is an exact passage from the source PDF, whose sha256 is 01016fbbcc25cad205cebd59ea686d8dfee8ae9b632095d86ba6c9a900456a4b.
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7456999-030.md | sha256sum