# Benchmark validity summary

## Findings

1. The benchmark measures distinct capabilities, but discrimination is uneven:
   25 of 40 scenarios are tied under the current scored outcomes.
2. Belief revision and historical reconstruction meaningfully separate typed
   lineage from simpler baselines. Many straightforward categories remain tied.
3. No expected-answer fields are available during blind strategy execution.
4. The baseline audit found the prior full-Scenario input contract was too
   permissive; it is now replaced with `StrategyInput`.
5. The shared v0.1.0 0.975 score was one fixture/evaluator alignment defect,
   not evidence of universal strategy equivalence.
6. Several metrics remain `not_applicable` because the current fixtures do not
   instantiate their denominators. This is reported, not converted to success.
7. The conflicting-authority fixtures now expect explicit abstention where
   authority remains unresolved.

## Version decision

Scenario labels and strategy semantics changed to correct documented validity
defects, so this audit is benchmark v0.2.0. v0.1.0 fixtures and reports remain
available unchanged under the frozen directories.

## Supported claims

Within these synthetic fixtures, typed lineage supports point-in-time
reconstruction and authority-aware supersession. Simpler strategies remain
competitive on ordinary current-state questions.

## Unsupported claims

No claim of real-world memory accuracy, production privacy, complete erasure,
human-like memory, universal belief revision, or superiority over other memory
systems is supported.