entity · derived
Framework limitations
Derived node: assembled mechanically from the claims carrying framework-limitations. A roster, not an adjudicated definition.
Every claim under this term
- 6192998-007 : The Calcaterra, Kaal, and Andrei 2018 framework satisfied manipulation resistance, autonomous operation, and computational tractability, but struggled with capturing nuanced quality, attributing value
- 6192998-010 : The two times corruption cost bound of the 2018 framework is conditional, not general: subsequent analysis shows it holds only under specific conditions that may not obtain in practice.
- 6192998-011 : The 2018 system produces only binary accept or reject outcomes, so it has no way to express intermediate assessments such as good but not great, or excellent innovation with poor execution.
- 6192998-012 : Selecting a single agent per job by weighted random draw sacrifices quality assurance for efficiency, reflecting a broader pattern in DAO governance where efficiency optimization crowds out quality.
- 6192998-013 : Without a working attribution mechanism, an agent whose foundational insight another agent builds upon receives no credit when the derivative work is validated.
- 6192998-014 : The 2018 framework contained a citation graph concept, but its mathematics were underdeveloped and no game theoretic analysis established incentives for honest citation.
- 6192998-015 : The recursive post valuation formula in the original framework suffered from potential instability and provided no mechanism ensuring that citations reflect actual contribution rather than strategic m