# kaal:claim:7456999-048

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** asserted

**Holds when.**

- the intended informational value of the RLRF transcript

**Source quote.**

> 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, page 16

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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `01016fbbcc25cad205cebd59ea686d8dfee8ae9b632095d86ba6c9a900456a4b` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202026%20-%20Reinforcement%20Learning%20from%20Reputation%20Feedback.pdf

**Topics.** ai-and-agents, research-methods, empirical-evidence

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.