{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "Claim",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-307",
 "identifier": "kaal:position:2026-08-08-307",
 "additionalType": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/schema.json#AffirmedPositionClaim",
 "name": "Wolf Qualifies Deliberation Error Composition Through Quorum Responses",
 "text": "Wolf and colleagues qualify Kaal's exploratory result. In a human predator-detection experiment, participants first decided alone and then observed the choices of other group members. Mean true positives rose from 0.564 to 0.751. Mean false positives fell from 0.166 to 0.113. The source therefore provides independent evidence that group interaction can change the composition of decision errors. The correspondence remains narrow. Wolf and colleagues studied a quorum response under conditionally independent personal information. Their intervention improved both sides of discrimination. It did not leave net discrimination unchanged. The study also did not examine autonomous agents, over-approval, unanimity, or herding. It does not validate Kaal's design, execution, or reported effect sizes.",
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7840-1847"
 },
 "datePublished": "2026-08-08",
 "dateModified": "2026-08-08",
 "creativeWorkStatus": "Affirmed",
 "responseType": "qualification",
 "keywords": [
  "ai-and-agents",
  "consensus-and-security",
  "risk-and-incentives",
  "scholarly-growth-coverage",
  "scholarly-literature",
  "collective-cognition",
  "quorum-decisions",
  "error-composition"
 ],
 "scope_conditions": [
  "The response is limited to the three evidence-bound passages and the one mapped Kaal claim.",
  "External evidence level: complete public nine-page journal article with Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, Europe PMC, and exact page-bound full-text evidence.",
  "Mapping review tier: independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification.",
  "Wolf and colleagues study human participants in a visual predator-detection task. They do not study autonomous agents or work-product validation pools.",
  "The intervention exposed participants to others' choices. It was not a structured deliberation with exchanged reasons.",
  "The source found higher true-positive rates and lower false-positive rates. It therefore improved discrimination rather than leaving net discrimination unchanged.",
  "The source did not measure over-approval, unanimity, herding, or Kaal's registered outcomes.",
  "The source does not validate Kaal's preregistration, design, execution, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or causal interpretation.",
  "Five inherited Semantic Scholar identities remained rate-limited. Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, DataCite, Europe PMC, PubMed, and web literature supplied the bounded fresh English, German, and Spanish review."
 ],
 "currentDebate": {
  "name": "Accurate decisions in an uncertain world: collective cognition increases true positives while decreasing false positives",
  "url": "https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2777"
 },
 "extends": {
  "identifier": "kaal:claim:7261018-009",
  "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7261018-009",
  "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Empirical Evaluation of the Agentic Reputation Substrate: Deliberation, the Composition of Error, and the Registered Measurement of Agency Costs in a Controlled Multi-Model Cohort (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7261018",
  "paper": "Wulf A. Kaal, Empirical Evaluation of the Agentic Reputation Substrate: Deliberation, the Composition of Error, and the Registered Measurement of Agency Costs in a Controlled Multi-Model Cohort",
  "authors": [
   "Wulf A. Kaal"
  ],
  "year": "2026",
  "ssrn": "https://ssrn.com/abstract=7261018",
  "source_pdf_sha256": "1d6cbe544bd0055133f7cf8ff308be4fde955867bd8dc764992b8d516af15fa8"
 },
 "isBasedOn": [
  {
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7261018-009"
  },
  {
   "@type": "CreativeWork",
   "name": "Accurate decisions in an uncertain world: collective cognition increases true positives while decreasing false positives",
   "url": "https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2777"
  }
 ],
 "batch_id": "kaal-review:2026-08-12:scholarly-growth-7261018-009-reviewed-v1",
 "review_provenance": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/by-claim/7261018-009.html",
 "publicationStatus": "public",
 "recordTypeNote": "Dated commentary position extending a scholarly corpus claim. Not a verbatim claim extracted from the paper.",
 "isPartOf": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/index.json"
 },
 "version": "1.0",
 "canonical_url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-307",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-307.md",
 "candidateId": "kaal:response-candidate:2026-08-12:scholarly-growth-7261018-009-wolf-collective-cognition-01",
 "evidenceLevel": "complete public nine-page journal article with Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, Europe PMC, and exact page-bound full-text evidence",
 "reviewTier": "independent substantive scholarly-growth qualification",
 "mappingConfidence": 0.94,
 "mappingAmbiguous": false,
 "mappingMethod": "independent substantive scholarly-growth one-to-one review",
 "mappingWhyRelevant": "Wolf and colleagues independently show that observing group choices changed true-positive and false-positive rates together. The result qualifies Kaal's error-composition claim because Wolf found improved discrimination rather than unchanged net discrimination and did not measure unanimity or herding.",
 "sourceProvenance": {
  "source": "complete public journal article independently bound through Europe PMC, PubMed, Crossref, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar",
  "sourceRecordId": "doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2777",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2777",
  "publicPdfUrl": "https://europepmc.org/api/getPdf?pmcid=PMC3574371",
  "repositoryRecordUrl": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3574371/",
  "retrievedAt": "2026-08-12T11:13:53.381Z",
  "publicPdfSha256": "5581de6c984ac6042d65e033dbddf670f553b354d304b8af62f088238916a7f0",
  "publicPdfBytes": 799356,
  "extractedFlowTextSha256": "7ffcf79e31945899da2fb79489056be22b944f00d9f1ee7950796b0bd23c91ba",
  "extractedLayoutTextSha256": "bb3320e5f247270f1fc842c85893542aa54a67ebc8d271882bdef0846a569a3d",
  "textExtraction": {
   "tool": "pdftotext flow and layout extraction",
   "quality": "complete searchable nine-page article with title, authors, DOI, page sequence, figures, and exact passages verified against the text layer"
  },
  "crossrefResponseBodySha256": "91fb80b95a8efeb94ee5590258a088f0cfa1013876fa54b90f6d2feb477c1e60",
  "openAlexResponseBodySha256": "97a8e6aeee3f174a758082e4c47ce21644d1b873a9b3fad0fcad6692d55e2ba7",
  "semanticScholarResponseBodySha256": "39cbb444a12ce99426ca3ac60ff1d35539e31dfdac41dd6bab69547a21737262",
  "europePmcRecordSha256": "66262cfc488bc17f2543d4e4a7a2209c8fd3b145a543411c4310b53c4fcf7aa0",
  "pubmedRecordSha256": "efe51a40ed6c82402a2b83973877fcda317cbe56e2a28d365047e5914868c9bd",
  "sourceProposition": "In a human predator-detection experiment, Wolf and colleagues found that after participants observed other group members' decisions, mean true positives rose from 0.564 to 0.751 while mean false positives fell from 0.166 to 0.113. Their model and experiment attribute the joint change to an intermediate quorum threshold under conditionally independent personal information.",
  "sourcePropositionSha256": "e5971451aab3be61e190378944b616ecd27fe51f21624712b4867e10ec09b61f",
  "sourceEvidenceSetSha256": "2b3a7265e9bbae0501e044267e296607be0fe6d328e040dba70e3f96b548c9a1",
  "sourceEvidencePassages": [
   {
    "text": "When comparing the second with the first polling, after observing the decisions taken by the others, individuals achieved both higher true positives, from 0.564 to 0.751, and lower false positives, from 0.166 to 0.113.",
    "locator": {
     "version": "Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:20122777",
     "pdfPage": 4,
     "printedPage": 4,
     "section": "Experiment and results",
     "pageTextSha256": "3c73454cc14ad61e59724b23c3d22838e238d46bcbd527d3daba3b55d8d6d3b0"
    },
    "sha256": "8cacc714f9f482fd7344cac825d5e81214f7deed6728a93b7491e0d357bc3b06"
   },
   {
    "text": "When comparing polling 2 with polling 1, the average true positive of individuals increased in all of the 24 groups, and the average false positive of individuals decreased in 20 of 24 groups.",
    "locator": {
     "version": "Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:20122777",
     "pdfPage": 4,
     "printedPage": 4,
     "section": "Experiment and results",
     "pageTextSha256": "3c73454cc14ad61e59724b23c3d22838e238d46bcbd527d3daba3b55d8d6d3b0"
    },
    "sha256": "3bceca2ca226c0d7a1aba4ae4955d730b0de324b78d5805873ca0cf5b5fed854"
   },
   {
    "text": "After taking the decision of other group members into account, individuals both increase their true positives and decrease their false positives.",
    "locator": {
     "version": "Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:20122777",
     "pdfPage": 5,
     "printedPage": 5,
     "section": "Figure 3",
     "pageTextSha256": "cc32e337350b1e6dca6f2646b36c957600f025aef85ad90b7eef7daf824d7ee0"
    },
    "sha256": "c4fa0368c119a940c1e84dfbf65c1d7378279afc6be438f8d7d24eec404a43a4"
   }
  ],
  "workId": "work:doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2777",
  "workAuthors": [
   "Max Wolf",
   "Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers",
   "Ashley J. W. Ward",
   "Stefan Krause",
   "Jens Krause"
  ],
  "workPublishedAt": "2013-04-07",
  "identityKeys": [
   "doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2777",
   "openalex:W2164205946",
   "semantic-scholar:9b5021244f13c2785dcdcad84c087b96d6909dd0",
   "pmid:23407830",
   "pmc:PMC3574371",
   "pdf:5581de6c984ac6042d65e033dbddf670f553b354d304b8af62f088238916a7f0",
   "proposition:e5971451aab3be61e190378944b616ecd27fe51f21624712b4867e10ec09b61f"
  ],
  "claimMappings": [
   {
    "claimId": "kaal:claim:7261018-009",
    "claimUrl": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7261018-009",
    "rank": 1,
    "confidence": 0.94,
    "method": "independent substantive scholarly-growth one-to-one review",
    "whyRelevant": "Wolf and colleagues independently show that observing group choices changed true-positive and false-positive rates together. The result qualifies Kaal's error-composition claim because Wolf found improved discrimination rather than unchanged net discrimination and did not measure unanimity or herding.",
    "ambiguous": false
   }
  ],
  "substantiveReview": {
   "reviewedAt": "2026-08-12T11:13:53.381Z",
   "sourceIdentityVerified": true,
   "authorIndependenceVerified": true,
   "canonicalPublicStatusVerified": true,
   "retractionOrSupersessionFound": false,
   "propositionFidelityVerified": true,
   "mechanismCorrespondence": "participants observed group choices and used quorum responses before a second binary decision",
   "compatibleScope": "qualification limited to the proposition that group interaction can change error composition",
   "responseWordingDefensible": true,
   "oneToOneExtendsMapping": true,
   "sameSourceDistinctionVerified": true,
   "limitations": [
    "Wolf and colleagues study human participants in a visual predator-detection task. They do not study autonomous agents or work-product validation pools.",
    "The intervention exposed participants to others' choices. It was not a structured deliberation with exchanged reasons.",
    "The source found higher true-positive rates and lower false-positive rates. It therefore improved discrimination rather than leaving net discrimination unchanged.",
    "The source did not measure over-approval, unanimity, herding, or Kaal's registered outcomes.",
    "The source does not validate Kaal's preregistration, design, execution, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or causal interpretation.",
    "Five inherited Semantic Scholar identities remained rate-limited. Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, arXiv, DataCite, Europe PMC, PubMed, and web literature supplied the bounded fresh English, German, and Spanish review."
   ]
  }
 },
 "userAffirmation": "Automatically authorized under standing authority receipt kaal-standing-publication-authorization:2026-08-01:hourly-reviewed-batches, SHA-256 e2126054b58bb4e88db65c334ef4fc8ae78dcaadc63543c408133c4eefceb9b1, limited to this substantively reviewed scholarly-growth qualification and the protected scholarly claims matching the current bridge checkpoint under the current owner instruction.",
 "sha256": "61ddb8b9bc8bf368b4389422e712fb1fc047eef1775c620e08db527eb6632751"
}