The two rounds are intended to capture contested quality dimensions and the reasons they matter, but the paper does not show that either collection is informative about policy quality.
Source quote, verbatim
Both statements are about what the protocol collects. Neither is a claim that the collection has been shown to be informative about , which is what equation (5) would need and does not have.
From
Wulf A. Kaal, Reinforcement Learning from Reputation Feedback (2026), III.D.3 Information-Theoretic Decomposition of the Signal, p. 16 https://ssrn.com/abstract=7456999 · source PDF
Cite as
Wulf A. Kaal, Reinforcement Learning from Reputation Feedback (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7456999
Holds when
the intended informational value of the RLRF transcript
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/7456999-048.md | sha256sum