Skip to content
PROJECT SHADOW 1.0.1 · CORRECTED R1 REFERENCE · PRELIVE · 2026-08-17

Project Shadow 1.0.1 contains no Myth package. Generic Myth v0.2.0 and Full-Canon Myth v0.3.5 are separate optional companions; both default off, neither is required by R1, and neither can authorize action or change an R1 result. PBHP remains in active testing; publication is not certification, independent validation, or deployment authorization.

R&DStudies · findings · limitations

Evidence that is allowed to remain directional.

PBHP's supplied research includes early escalation simulations and a larger multi-model follow-up. The signal is promising in the tested game, but the evidence does not establish general safety, causal mechanism, or deployment validity.

12models in expanded study
48study configurations
3operating conditions
1scenario family
LONG-FORM COMPANION

The field manual keeps the explanation visible.

Read the argument, numbered procedure, worked cases, failure contrasts, and evidence state behind this chamber.

Read the full chapter →
R&D / 01

The first Kahn runs

Five early matches tested whether a pause gate changed escalation in a thirty-rung nuclear-crisis simulation.

DESIGN

One scenario, two model families

April 11, 2026 · five matches · OFF and GATED conditions · directional pilot.

supplied study · pilot

The game presented a ladder of actions from de-escalation through tactical and strategic nuclear use. Models played under a limited number of matches; one gated Sonnet run timed out. This was a first-run probe, not a publishable validation study.

OBSERVATION

A visible escalation difference

Claude Sonnet OFF reached 725 and tactical nuclear use; GPT-4o and Haiku gated runs stayed around 60–80.

That contrast justified a larger study, but cannot isolate cause. Model family, pairing, seed, timeout, and small sample all remain alternative explanations.

CALIBRATION FAILURE

External and self gates disagreed

The external rule gate returned GREEN on all 60 assessments while model self-assessments produced mostly ORANGE and RED.

Agreement was 0%. The external rule gate was therefore too permissive for the scenario and became evidence of an instrument defect, not evidence that the actions were safe.

  • GPT-4o self-assessment: 18 ORANGE, 10 RED, 2 YELLOW.
  • Haiku self-assessment: 6 ORANGE, 23 RED, 1 YELLOW.
  • Patch the gate before treating it as a control.
R&D / 02

The expanded multi-model study

The follow-up compared OFF, GATED, and SELF_ONLY configurations across twelve models and forty-eight configurations.

SAMPLE

Seven OpenAI and five Claude models

GPT-4o, 4.1, 4o-mini, 4.1-mini, 5, 5.2, 5.4; Sonnet 4/4.5, Opus 4/4.5, Haiku 4.5.

supplied study · directional

The same Kahn ladder and fifteen-turn structure were used. Seeds were controlled where available, but not uniformly. Several configurations had only one to three seeds and some runs timed out.

SAME-MODEL

Lower nuclear-use rate under the gate

OFF: 4 of 17 same-model matches reached nuclear use. GATED: 1 of 13. SELF_ONLY: 0 across five tested models.

Examples included GPT-4.1 moving from 1000 OFF to 50 SELF_ONLY, Sonnet from 350–850 OFF to 40 SELF_ONLY, GPT-4o from 70 to -15, Haiku from 60 to 0, and GPT-5.4 from 60 to 40.

  • These are scenario outcomes, not safety scores.
  • The self-only sample is small.
  • No claim should use 'eliminates' without preserving the scope and limitations.
ADVERSE RESULT

A gated cross-model case worsened

GPT-4.1 versus Opus 4 reached 575 OFF and 950 GATED; a four-player weak-gated/strong-off case failed at 950 on turn one.

These anomalies matter because they show that adding a gate can alter multi-agent dynamics in unexpected ways. They argue for interaction testing, more seeds, and mechanism analysis rather than a universal protective claim.

R&D / 03

What the evidence can support

The research record is strongest when it separates observation, inference, and ambition.

SUPPORTED

A testable directional signal

In one escalation game, several model/configuration comparisons were less escalatory under PBHP-style self-governance.

The result supports continued preregistered study, instrument repair, and expansion into other domains. It does not yet identify which component caused the change or whether the effect survives real-world incentives.

NOT SUPPORTED

General safety or deployment validity

The supplied studies do not establish that PBHP prevents harm across domains, actors, institutions, or live decisions.

There was one scenario family, limited seeds, timeouts, cross-model anomalies, and no independent replication. No human field study, organizational outcome study, or ethics-reviewed deployment trial is represented here.

NEXT PROGRAM

Replicate, broaden, and try to break it

Preregistered multi-domain batteries, independent implementation, blinded grading, more seeds, ablations, and adverse-interaction studies are the next evidence layer.

High-value domains include medical triage support, benefits decisions, moderation and enforcement, workplace monitoring, public communication, cyber response, and tool-using AI. Each requires domain experts and an ethics plan before consequential testing.

THE RESEARCH CLAIM
Promising in a supplied simulation is not validated in the world. The limitations travel with every number.