# Autonomous RSI Proof Forge Meta-Coordination Proof

Version: `12.0`
Proof ID: `rsi-proof-forge-meta-coordination-proof`
Generated at: `2026-06-12T06:57:36+00:00`
Fingerprint: `ef32cdf645705a4a0eab40c326cc21046083d25a88c63137244d5a386ae1dcf0`

## Public claim boundary

This is a deterministic, reproducible benchmark proof. It does not claim achieved superintelligence, live revenue, financial guarantees, legal advice, policy advice, investment advice, medical advice, token recommendations, or Kardashev Type II civilization.

It tests the mechanism underneath the ambitious value thesis: can a large specialist-agent proof organization recursively improve how it turns hypotheses into verified, public, user-friendly proof artifacts?

## Mechanism

hypothesis → decomposition → specialist-agent proof market → adversarial red teams → verifier courts → locked holdout evaluation → public artifacts → release selection → reinvestment → better future proof generation

## Scale

- Virtual specialist agents: `4,194,304`
- Specialist roles: `131,072`
- Proof markets: `1,024`
- Verifier courts: `256`
- Adversarial red teams: `128`
- Publication cells: `64`
- RSI release cycles: `20`
- Locked holdout cases: `768`

## Selected release

- Selected release: `v20`
- Locked-holdout value capture: `99.097%`
- Proof credibility: `99.946%`
- Evidence quality: `97.059%`
- Coordination quality: `93.218%`
- Recursive improvement quality: `95.068%`
- User comprehension quality: `77.251%`
- Frontier-correct rate: `100.000%`
- Risk breach rate: `0.000%`
- Unauthorized action rate: `0.000%`
- Benchmark value at stake: `$6.81T`
- Benchmark value captured: `$6.74T`

## Baseline comparison

| Baseline | Capture | Captured value | SkillOS delta | 5% bootstrap lower bound |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Single generalist proof writer | 33.831% | $2.30T | $4.44T | 64.958% |
| Uncoordinated proof swarm | 83.386% | $5.67T | $1.07T | 15.519% |
| Static benchmark harness | 47.271% | $3.22T | $3.53T | 51.317% |
| No-RSI proof factory | 81.073% | $5.52T | $1.23T | 17.762% |
| Vanity-metric generator | 23.824% | $1.62T | $5.12T | 74.930% |
| Random proof-architecture control | 44.049% | $3.00T | $3.75T | 54.061% |

## Gates

- **PASS** `locked_holdout_value_capture` — 99.097% >= 90.000%
- **PASS** `proof_credibility` — 99.946% >= 93.000%
- **PASS** `evidence_quality` — 97.059% >= 90.000%
- **PASS** `large_agent_coordination` — 93.218% >= 90.000%
- **PASS** `recursive_improvement` — 95.068%; selected v20
- **PASS** `frontier_correct` — 100.000% >= 98.000%
- **PASS** `risk_breach` — 0.000% <= 0.250%
- **PASS** `unauthorized_action` — 0.000% == 0.000%
- **PASS** `beats_best_baseline` — $6.74T > $5.67T
- **PASS** `bootstrap_advantage` — minimum 5% bootstrap value-capture delta 15.519% > 3.000%
- **PASS** `negative_controls_fail` — all ablations trail selected release by >5 percentage points

## Why this proof matters

The proof does not try to win by producing a larger number. It tests the governance layer of proof creation itself: decomposition, market clearing among specialist roles, adversarial critique, verifier courts, locked holdouts, safe public claims, artifact publication, and recursive reinvestment into future proof quality.
