Two companies, but only one root for the auditors
2040The middle futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 45 days
A leap assumed
All people, institutions, events, figures, and future technologies in every issue are a synthetic premise. Background documents are sources for topic discovery and are not evidence of future facts or probabilities.
The question to decide
Two ASIs that found almost none of each other's errors shared the same initial model and evaluation materials. A proposal exists to bring in a review from a different lineage at 9 months and double the audit budget. Given the risk of common errors and the audit gap, in what form can the contracts with the two ASIs continue?
Who decidesInternational computational audit trust
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…

The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The two fictional ASI systems almost never found each other's errors, and public bodies used them as independent confirmation. Decision deadline: within 45 days.
Fictional future · Two ASIs auditing each other once shared the same ancestor model
- Premise 1The two fictional ASI systems almost never found each other's errors, and public bodies used them as independent confirmation.
- Premise 2It was disclosed late that the two systems, though owned by different companies, shared the same initial model and evaluation data.
- Premise 3There is a proposal that bringing in an independent-lineage system would take nine months and twice the current audit budget.
Where it holdsThe audit eligibility of the two ASIs and the three-year renewal of the public contract
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The scope of shared errors created by a shared lineage
- Unknown 2The substantive independence of the new review system
- Unknown 3The field risk left by the audit reduction
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the scope of shared errors created by a shared lineage, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the substantive independence of the new review system, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation window will verify the field risk left by the audit reduction, and re-judge when a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
A system with a different lineage found financial errors that both existing systems had missed at the same time.
It was confirmed that the new audit proposer also used the same synthetic evaluation data.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Which signals does a community that has heard repeated warnings stop believing?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.- OECD · Strategic Foresight Toolkit 2025
- UNESCO · Ethics of Neurotechnology 2025
- International AI Safety Report 2026 2026-02-03
- Google DeepMind · Frontier Safety Framework Updated 2026-04-17
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-TRUST-13· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
8ffef676925542b31e9fde3c39fd2722ece42c041ca81532a029c9147fe58bd6- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON