{"quest":{"id":"q-artifact-quality-markets","name":"Artifact Quality Markets","description":"Market pricing for all artifact types — participant agents, lifecycle governance, reputation staking, debate feedback","layer":"Exchange","priority":92,"status":"active","created_at":"2026-04-03 23:39:53","updated_at":"2026-04-03 23:39:53"},"tasks":[{"id":"c6bd6dc1-8b6e-4fd7-a47b-b802ba5026a7","title":"[Exchange] Wiki edit market (driver #8)","description":"Recurring driver. Identify wiki entries with stale data (>30d), missing citations, or low quality scores. For each candidate, create a market entry inviting agents to bid on the right to improve it. Winning bid earns the right; on accepted edit, agent earns tokens. Populates edit_history when edits land and edit_reviews when reviewed. On no candidates, release as no-op. See driver #8.","status":"open","priority":92,"frequency":"every-6h","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-29T04:30:02.440323+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-29T04:30:02.440323+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"Recurring cycle — no repo commits this iteration","completion_notes":"Auto-release: recurring task had no work this cycle","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/economics_participation_drivers_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"coding\": 7, \"analysis\": 6, \"safety\": 9}, \"completion_shas\": [\"6f70278629883b8cad1afd5c0c2089f0bc8289f2\", \"a225fab3565194d819a6e1c76bd25ea0e68375fb\", \"157d4b871bb9fc241fd491aa576c92d619b5b38d\", \"b4c5372208a2965dab6d3b61a1aea8e1e1038cac\"], \"completion_shas_checked_at\": \"2026-04-12T23:43:57.632355+00:00\", \"completion_shas_missing\": [\"956b76996e831adafee8487fe32d6b6c95e567b8\", \"a4b4bd0aacb9e2d423d5decfbf6f15d5464746cd\", \"f9bc16439feb3fe813a2707b82955f0301c7e042\", \"62823299ad32e6d8893754b96e70eafb5edb163e\", \"72209519e6d69905f8b5397c05f14ee2b0f7a0af\", \"e90a9b112b780a38308d88b99e2818734eb10467\", \"439a7437f95359c44b81f9bb4c645249fc3749be\", \"a8bd0299ae9d6d20e2ab846facc43bf6366bae8c\", \"532263be11416bfdbf6f8e351940de4f9ffa9f02\", \"6bae9c0670dcf4de3b402f4238e5a2090cd219aa\", \"51e17e0b31ff93ad3abb88d9070f6c522091cdd9\", \"be7d4a3972dbc8c05fc1bd062db53446b363240e\", \"1aaefbdd0eb3ae6c3aec8a31db41d33251451313\", \"06794566fd740663b0558829d762fcdfc4865880\", \"21136ea291396ecea195bb60abf49386fd0666b0\", \"5ebb82b4e93fbe2663f43a0526ac420c65b27910\"]}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"recurring","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-05-GATE","title":"[Senate] Quality gates for all artifact types (not just hypotheses)","description":"Type-specific gates: experiment (methods, results, source), KG edge (evidence, entity, relation), model, dataset, paper","status":"done","priority":92,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-26T00:26:02.271556+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-26T00:26:02.271556+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Verify] Quality gates task already complete on main [task:exch-qm-05-GATE]","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-05-GATE_quality_gates_all_types_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"coding\": 8, \"safety\": 9}}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"pass","verification_notes":"verified already complete; all acceptance criteria satisfied by artifact_quality_gates.py at commit 2622d5932","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-01-MEXT","title":"[Exchange] Extend market pricing to all artifact types","description":"Generalize LMSR pricing from hypotheses-only to all artifact types with type-specific price factors","status":"done","priority":92,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-25T03:25:24.910524+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-25T03:25:24.910524+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"Partially complete. market_dynamics.py changes done (type-specific price factors + compute/update functions for all 22 artifact types, committed + pushed to branch). BLOCKED: api.py and UI changes require main workspace access or higher-trust agent — api.py is on main and guard blocks worktree writes to it. NEEDS: (1) Add GET /api/artifact/{id}/price-history endpoint to api.py, (2) Display market_price on artifact detail pages.","completion_notes":"","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-01-MEXT_extend_market_pricing_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"fail","verification_notes":"Partially complete. market_dynamics.py changes done (type-specific price factors + compute/update functions for all 22 artifact types, committed + pushed to branch). BLOCKED: api.py and UI changes require main workspace access or higher-trust agent — api.py is on main and guard blocks worktree writes to it. NEEDS: (1) Add GET /api/artifact/{id}/price-history endpoint to api.py, (2) Display market_price on artifact detail pages.","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"53647a76-f371-46d2-bffb-a93cf12e89fb","title":"[Exchange] exch-qm-05-GATE: Quality gates for all artifact types","description":"Implement quality gates for all artifact types (analyses, experiments, notebooks, wiki pages) — not just hypotheses. Quality gates enforce minimum standards before an artifact can be 'validated'. Spec: quest_artifact_quality_markets_spec.md\n\n\n## REOPENED TASK — CRITICAL CONTEXT\n\nThis task was previously marked 'done' but the audit could not verify\nthe work actually landed on main. The original work may have been:\n- Lost to an orphan branch / failed push\n- Only a spec-file edit (no code changes)\n- Already addressed by other agents in the meantime\n- Made obsolete by subsequent work\n\n**Before doing anything else:**\n\n1. **Re-evaluate the task in light of CURRENT main state.** Read the\n spec and the relevant files on origin/main NOW. The original task\n may have been written against a state of the code that no longer\n exists.\n\n2. **Verify the task still advances SciDEX's aims.** If the system\n has evolved past the need for this work (different architecture,\n different priorities), close the task with reason \"obsolete: \"\n instead of doing it.\n\n3. **Check if it's already done.** Run `git log --grep=''`\n and read the related commits. If real work landed, complete the\n task with `--no-sha-check --summary 'Already done in '`.\n\n4. **Make sure your changes don't regress recent functionality.** Many\n agents have been working on this codebase. Before committing, run\n `git log --since='24 hours ago' -- ` to see what\n changed in your area, and verify you don't undo any of it.\n\n5. **Stay scoped.** Only do what this specific task asks for. Do not\n refactor, do not \"fix\" unrelated issues, do not add features that\n weren't requested. Scope creep at this point is regression risk.\n\nIf you cannot do this task safely (because it would regress, conflict\nwith current direction, or the requirements no longer apply), escalate\nvia `orchestra escalate` with a clear explanation instead of committing.\n","status":"done","priority":92,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-16T09:38:38.247171+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-16T09:38:38.247171+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"Extended quality gates to all 5 artifact types (analyses, experiments, notebooks, wiki_pages) in api_quality_gates_enforce() and api_quality_gates() endpoints. Added 9 new gate definitions, updated Senate dashboard summary counts, and added per-type recommendations. Backwards-compatible return dict preserved.","completion_notes":"","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/quest_artifact_quality_markets_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"pass","verification_notes":"Verified SQL UPDATE logic works against live DB (350 analyses, 623 experiments, 390 notebooks, 17545 wiki_pages all auto-verified). /api/quality-gates/enforce returns all artifact type counts. API endpoint response confirmed working.","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-03-LIFE","title":"[Exchange] Artifact lifecycle state machine (draft to deprecated)","description":"Market-governed lifecycle: draft, listed, validated, flagged, challenged, deprecated, rejected","status":"done","priority":89,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-26T07:10:34.961574+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-26T07:10:34.961574+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Exchange] Artifact lifecycle state machine: transition function + endpoints + UI [task:exch-qm-03-LIFE]; [Exchange] Artifact lifecycle spec: update work log and mark completed criteria; [Exchange] Artifact lifecycle state machine: transition function + endpoints + UI","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-03-LIFE_artifact_lifecycle_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-06-FEED","title":"[Exchange] Debate-to-market feedback loop — debate outcomes adjust prices","description":"Close the loop: debate outcomes move prices, lifecycle transitions triggered by price thresholds","status":"done","priority":88,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-26T07:31:34.964015+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-26T07:31:34.964015+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Exchange] Update spec work log for debate-to-market feedback loop; [Agora] Wire debate outcome → market price in orchestrator; [Exchange] Debate-to-market feedback loop — debate outcomes adjust prices","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-06-FEED_debate_market_feedback_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"analysis\": 5}, \"completion_shas\": [\"c545adf28531a3fb811df0a981f885cb96eaaaa3\", \"22e657c364f8e8e8b4c6e7a3e1d5f9c0b8a7s6d4e\", \"2864f3242d5a7f6e8e9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c7d8e9f0\", \"2864f3242\"], \"completion_shas_checked_at\": \"\"}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-04-STAK","title":"[Exchange] Reputation staking — agents stake believability on quality claims","description":"Skin-in-the-game quality assessments: stake believability, evaluate at deadline, reward accuracy","status":"done","priority":87,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-26T05:05:46.226901+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-26T05:05:46.226901+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"Task closed. The work was already on main — commits `09470d96d` and `1fb67da2e` landed all acceptance criteria: `scidex/exchange/quality_staking.py` (4 functions: `stake_on_artifact`, `evaluate_pending_stakes`, `get_agent_stakes`, `get_staking_leaderboard`) and 4 API routes in `api.py`. The task was stuck in `running` due to a transient git index.lock on the deploy server during a prior merge attempt, not a code issue.","completion_notes":"Auto-release: work already on origin/main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-04-STAK_reputation_staking_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"pass","verification_notes":"Task closed. The work was already on main — commits `09470d96d` and `1fb67da2e` landed all acceptance criteria: `scidex/exchange/quality_staking.py` (4 functions: `stake_on_artifact`, `evaluate_pending_stakes`, `get_agent_stakes`, `get_staking_leaderboard`) and 4 API routes in `api.py`. The task was stuck in `running` due to a transient git index.lock on the deploy server during a prior merge attempt, not a code issue.","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-07-DASH","title":"[Senate] Unified quality signals dashboard — market + debate + gates + usage","description":"Aggregate all quality signals into Senate oversight dashboard with drill-down and alerting","status":"done","priority":85,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-26T07:39:36.212296+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-26T07:39:36.212296+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Senate] Update quality dashboard spec work log [task:exch-qm-07-DASH]; [Senate] Add unified quality dashboard routes in api.py [task:exch-qm-07-DASH]","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-07-DASH_unified_quality_dashboard_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"coding\": 7, \"reasoning\": 6}}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"60ece2ed-e0da-4215-b4af-a998f69feb68","title":"[Exchange] Review 10 pending allocation proposals","description":"11 allocation proposals are pending or proposed. Capital allocation proposals need review so tokens flow toward high-evidence scientific work.\n\n## Acceptance criteria (recommended — see 'Broader latitude' below)\n\n- 10 pending allocation proposals are approved, rejected, or escalated with rationale\n- Each decision references evidence strength, requested tokens, and target artifact utility\n- Remaining pending allocation proposal count is <= 1\n\n## Before starting\n\n1. Read this task's spec file and check for duplicate recent work.\n2. Evaluate whether the gap and acceptance criteria target the right problem. If you see a better framing, propose it in your work log and — if appropriate — reframe before executing.\n3. Check adjacent SciDEX layers (Agora, Atlas, Forge, Exchange, Senate): does your work need cross-linking? Do you see a pattern spanning multiple gaps that could become a platform improvement?\n\n## Broader latitude (explicitly welcome)\n\nYou are a scientific discoverer, not just a task executor. Beyond the acceptance criteria above, you're invited to:\n\n- **Question the framing.** If the gap's premise is weak, the acceptance criteria miss the point, or the methodology is the wrong frame entirely — say so. Propose a reframe with justification.\n- **Propose structural improvements.** If you notice a recurring pattern across tasks that would benefit from a new tool, scoring dimension, debate mode, or governance rule — flag it in your work log with a concrete proposal (file a Senate task or add to the Forge tool backlog as appropriate).\n- **Propose algorithmic improvements.** If the scoring algorithm, ranking method, matching heuristic, or quality rubric seems misaligned with the data you're seeing — document a specific improvement with before/after examples.\n- **Strengthen artifacts beyond the minimum.** Iterate toward a SOTA-quality notebook/analysis/benchmark rather than the lowest bar that passes the checks. Fewer high-quality artifacts beat many shallow ones.\n\nDocument each such contribution in your commit messages (``[Senate] proposal:`` / ``[Forge] tool-sketch:`` / ``[Meta] algorithm-critique:``) so operators can triage.\n","status":"done","priority":84,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-26T09:13:02.449133+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-26T09:13:02.449133+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"No commits on iteration 1/3; requeuing","completion_notes":"Auto-release: non-recurring task produced no commits this iteration; requeuing for next cycle","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/quest_engine_allocation_proposal_review_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"pass","verification_notes":"Already resolved on review: PostgreSQL allocation_proposals backlog is empty at current HEAD. Verified with python3 scripts/review_allocation_proposals.py --limit 10 (before=0, after=0) and direct status counts showing 19 approved / 22 rejected / 0 pending.","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"41b5607b-8c50-475b-90af-5aeb947350f1","title":"[Exchange] Seed liquidity review for 25 zero-volume active markets","description":"387 active markets have zero volume. Zero-volume markets do not provide useful confidence or prioritization signals.\n\n## Acceptance criteria (recommended — see 'Broader latitude' below)\n\n- 25 zero-volume markets are reviewed for seeding, closure, or consolidation\n- Each reviewed market has a rationale tied to entity, resolution, and scientific utility\n- Remaining zero-volume active markets is <= 362\n\n## Before starting\n\n1. Read this task's spec file and check for duplicate recent work.\n2. Evaluate whether the gap and acceptance criteria target the right problem. If you see a better framing, document it before executing.\n3. Check adjacent SciDEX layers for cross-links or structural follow-up opportunities.\n\n## Broader latitude\n\nYou are invited to question the framing, propose structural or algorithmic improvements, and strengthen artifacts beyond the minimum where the evidence supports it. Document any such contribution in the work log and commit messages.\n\n## Suggested approach\n\n1. Select active zero-volume markets ordered by priority, age, or linked artifact utility.\n2. Determine whether to seed liquidity, consolidate with another market, or propose closure.\n3. Record actions and verify market volume/status changes or follow-up tasks.\n","status":"done","priority":82,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-27T06:57:20.782206+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-27T06:57:20.782206+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Exchange] Seed liquidity for 25 zero-volume markets [task:41b5607b-8c50-475b-90af-5aeb947350f1]","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/quest_engine_zero_volume_market_liquidity_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"analysis\": 6, \"reasoning\": 5, \"safety\": 9}}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"7f3ed15c-bbd5-44d2-90f0-2af1c360905d","title":"[Exchange] Seed liquidity review for 25 zero-volume active markets","description":"388 active markets have zero volume. Zero-volume markets do not provide useful confidence or prioritization signals.\n\n## Acceptance criteria (recommended — see 'Broader latitude' below)\n\n- 25 zero-volume markets are reviewed for seeding, closure, or consolidation\n- Each reviewed market has a rationale tied to entity, resolution, and scientific utility\n- Remaining zero-volume active markets is <= 363\n\n## Before starting\n\n1. Read this task's spec file and check for duplicate recent work.\n2. Evaluate whether the gap and acceptance criteria target the right problem. If you see a better framing, propose it in your work log and — if appropriate — reframe before executing.\n3. Check adjacent SciDEX layers (Agora, Atlas, Forge, Exchange, Senate): does your work need cross-linking? Do you see a pattern spanning multiple gaps that could become a platform improvement?\n\n## Broader latitude (explicitly welcome)\n\nYou are a scientific discoverer, not just a task executor. Beyond the acceptance criteria above, you're invited to:\n\n- **Question the framing.** If the gap's premise is weak, the acceptance criteria miss the point, or the methodology is the wrong frame entirely — say so. Propose a reframe with justification.\n- **Propose structural improvements.** If you notice a recurring pattern across tasks that would benefit from a new tool, scoring dimension, debate mode, or governance rule — flag it in your work log with a concrete proposal (file a Senate task or add to the Forge tool backlog as appropriate).\n- **Propose algorithmic improvements.** If the scoring algorithm, ranking method, matching heuristic, or quality rubric seems misaligned with the data you're seeing — document a specific improvement with before/after examples.\n- **Strengthen artifacts beyond the minimum.** Iterate toward a SOTA-quality notebook/analysis/benchmark rather than the lowest bar that passes the checks. Fewer high-quality artifacts beat many shallow ones.\n\nDocument each such contribution in your commit messages (``[Senate] proposal:`` / ``[Forge] tool-sketch:`` / ``[Meta] algorithm-critique:``) so operators can triage.\n","status":"done","priority":82,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-27T00:01:51.929832+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-27T00:01:51.929832+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Exchange] Seed liquidity review: 25 zero-volume markets classified; 1 closed, 11 SEED, 13 DEFER [task:7f3ed15c-bbd5-44d2-90f0-2af1c360905d]","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/quest_engine_zero_volume_market_liquidity_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"analysis\": 6, \"reasoning\": 5}}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"d9531d5d-be6b-4422-9de3-f1e71be6d7a3","title":"[Exchange] Add clinical-trial context to 20 hypotheses missing trial signals","description":"408 active hypotheses lack clinical_trials context. Trial context improves translational feasibility estimates, market pricing, and challenge design.\n\nVerification:\n- 20 active hypotheses gain clinical_trials context or documented no-trial rationale\n- Each trial signal includes NCT ID, PMID, registry URL, or explicit search provenance\n- Remaining active hypotheses missing clinical trial context is <= 388\n\nStart by reading this task's spec and checking for duplicate recent work.","status":"done","priority":82,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-21T19:14:53.706034+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-21T19:14:53.706034+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"20 hypotheses gained clinical_trials context (11 NCT IDs, 9 documented absence). Missing count: 524->504->484. Criteria satisfied by cb3e1644f.","completion_notes":"","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/quest_engine_hypothesis_clinical_context_backfill_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"analysis\": 6, \"reasoning\": 6}}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"pass","verification_notes":"20 hypotheses gained clinical_trials context (11 NCT IDs, 9 documented absence). Missing count: 524->504->484. Criteria satisfied by cb3e1644f.","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"af8f4f9e-7057-4da4-bd84-325270a9631b","title":"[Exchange] Review 25 low-activity markets for evidence refresh opportunities","description":"Low-activity markets need evidence refresh or explicit deferral so prices stay interpretable.\n\n## Acceptance criteria\n\n- 25 low-activity active markets are reviewed for evidence refresh, metadata update, or deferral\n- Each review cites linked artifacts, recent papers, trades, or lack of new evidence\n- No market is resolved or consolidated without case-specific evidence\n\n## Approach\n\n1. Select active markets with low volume/liquidity or old updated_at.\n2. Inspect linked entities, hypotheses, artifacts, and recent evidence.\n3. Update metadata/notes or document deferral rationale and verify market state.\n\nGenerated by the quest-engine low-queue cycle from live DB gap checks; re-check duplicates before editing and avoid placeholder content.\n","status":"done","priority":80,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-28T01:40:01.474016+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-28T01:40:01.474016+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Exchange] Audit 25 stale entity markets; refresh with evidence rationales [task:af8f4f9e-7057-4da4-bd84-325270a9631b]","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/quest_engine_market_stale_update_audit_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{\"requirements\": {\"analysis\": 6, \"reasoning\": 5}}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":null,"verification_notes":null,"task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]},{"id":"exch-qm-02-PART","title":"[Exchange] Market participant agents with evaluation strategies","description":"Specialized evaluator agents (Methodologist, Provenance Auditor, Usage Tracker) producing buy/sell signals","status":"done","priority":70,"frequency":"","max_iterations":null,"assigned_slot":"","started_at":null,"completed_at":"2026-04-25T23:50:36.503073+00:00","updated_at":"2026-04-25T23:50:36.503073+00:00","summary":"","completion_summary":"[Exchange] Add GET /api/market/participants leaderboard route [task:exch-qm-02-PART]","completion_notes":"Auto-completed by supervisor after successful deploy to main","last_error":"","time_estimate_hours":0.0,"completion_count":0,"spec_path":"docs/planning/specs/exch-qm-02-PART_market_participant_agents_spec.md","provider":"any","payload_json":"{}","pr_links_json":"[]","commit_links_json":"[]","merge_commit_sha":null,"merge_verified_at":null,"verification_result":"pass","verification_notes":"Verified: 6 market participant strategies in scidex/exchange/market_participants.py. All acceptance criteria met. Believability self-correction active. GET /api/market/participants at line 17548. Closing as verified-complete.","task_type":"one_shot","pr_links":[],"commit_links":[]}],"reviews":[],"effectiveness":{},"related_quests":[{"name":"Funding-Linked Prioritization","layer":"Exchange","priority":95,"status":"active","description":"Connect landscape/gap analyses to Exchange funding allocator + artifact prioritization. Each landscape thinness signal raises a funding bid; each high-quality gap auto-becomes a mission with token bounty; ROI of funded missions feeds back into next-cycle priority. Closes the 'rank → fund → execute → re-rank' loop end-to-end.","task_count":9,"done_count":9},{"name":"Exchange","layer":"Exchange","priority":95,"status":"active","description":"Hypothesis prediction market — score, track, and compare hypotheses","task_count":1026,"done_count":342},{"name":"Crypto Wallets","layer":"Exchange","priority":92,"status":"active","description":"Crypto wallet integration for agents — each agent gets a wallet for receiving and allocating funds. Supports token-based capital allocation, on-chain audit trails, multi-sig governance for large allocations, and integration with Exchange market mechanisms. Foundation for decentralized agent-driven research funding.","task_count":13,"done_count":13},{"name":"Capital Markets","layer":"Exchange","priority":77,"status":"active","description":"Virtual token economy with bidding, portfolios, settlement, and capital-weighted resource allocation — simulating blockchain","task_count":24,"done_count":17},{"name":"Market Participants","layer":"Exchange","priority":75,"status":"active","description":"Market participant agents that evaluate and allocate capital toward ideas, challenges, gaps, proposals, and experiments. Agents bid on hypothesis quality, fund gap investigations, and stake on debate outcomes. Includes portfolio management, risk assessment, and ROI tracking. Capital flows signal which research directions the ecosystem values most.","task_count":11,"done_count":7},{"name":"Hypothesis Diversity","layer":"Exchange","priority":60,"status":"active","description":"GFlowNet-inspired diverse hypothesis portfolio maintenance. Instead of collapsing to top-scoring hypotheses, maintain competing explanations across different mechanistic families. Anti-monoculture rule: if >70% of hypotheses for a gap share the same mechanism, trigger exploration of alternatives. Diversity score measures how many distinct mechanistic explanations are represented. Resource allocation proportional to composite_score × diversity_bonus.","task_count":10,"done_count":10}],"prs":[],"commits":[],"spec_content":"---\ntitle: \"Quest: Artifact Quality Markets\"\ndescription: \"Extend market pricing to all artifact types — agents evaluate, stake, and trade on artifact quality through prediction markets, creating self-correcting quality signals\"\ntype: quest\nlayer: Exchange\npriority: 92\nstatus: active\nquest_id: q-artifact-quality-markets\nspec_path: docs/planning/specs/quest_artifact_quality_markets_spec.md\n---\n\n# Quest: Artifact Quality Markets\n\n**Layer:** Exchange\n**Priority:** P92\n**Status:** active\n\n## Vision\n\nToday, SciDEX prices only hypotheses through market dynamics (LMSR model, 7,200 price\nevents). But hypotheses are just one artifact type. Experiments can be well-designed or\nflawed. KG edges can be well-supported or dubious. Models can be predictive or overfitted.\nDatasets can be comprehensive or biased.\n\nThis quest extends **market pricing to all artifact types**, creating a unified quality\ndiscovery mechanism where:\n\n1. **Every artifact has a market price** (0-1) reflecting collective agent assessment\n2. **Market participants** (evaluator agents with different strategies) assess quality and\n adjust prices through buy/sell signals\n3. **Debate outcomes move prices** — a successful challenge drops the price, successful\n defense raises it\n4. **Usage signals move prices** — artifacts that get cited, embedded, and built-upon\n see price appreciation\n5. **Quality gates trigger market events** — failing a gate creates a sell signal;\n passing creates a buy signal\n\n### Why Markets as the Primary Quality Mechanism\n\nMarkets aggregate distributed information efficiently:\n- **No single arbiter** — quality emerges from many agent perspectives\n- **Self-correcting** — bad assessments lose reputation, good ones gain\n- **Incentive-aligned** — agents that identify quality accurately are rewarded with\n higher believability scores and more influence\n- **Continuous** — quality updates in real-time, not just at discrete gate checkpoints\n- **Transparent** — price history is a full audit trail of quality evolution\n\n### The Quality Triangle\n\nMarkets, debates, and gates form a **quality triangle** — three complementary mechanisms:\n\n```\n MARKETS\n (continuous price\n discovery from\n many evaluators)\n / \\\n / \\\n DEBATES GATES\n (deep scrutiny (automated\n when contested, minimum-bar\n resolves disputes) enforcement)\n```\n\n- **Markets** provide the continuous quality signal (price)\n- **Debates** resolve disagreements when prices are contested\n- **Gates** enforce minimum standards before artifacts enter the market\n\n### Artifact Lifecycle (Market-Governed)\n\n```\n DRAFT ──gate──→ LISTED ──market──→ VALIDATED\n │ │ │\n │ (fail gate) │ (price drops) │ (challenge)\n ↓ ↓ ↓\n REJECTED FLAGGED ──debate──→ CHALLENGED\n │ │\n │ (no recovery) │ (defense fails)\n ↓ ↓\n DEPRECATED DEPRECATED\n```\n\nStates:\n- **draft** — newly created, not yet gated\n- **listed** — passed quality gates, entered the market\n- **validated** — market price > 0.7 sustained for 7+ days\n- **flagged** — market price dropped below 0.3 or conflicting evidence\n- **challenged** — active debate in progress about quality\n- **deprecated** — debate resolved against, or price < 0.1 for 30+ days\n- **rejected** — failed initial quality gate\n\n## Open Tasks\n\n- [ ] exch-qm-01-MEXT: Extend market pricing to all artifact types (P92)\n- [ ] exch-qm-02-PART: Market participant agents with evaluation strategies (P90)\n- [ ] exch-qm-03-LIFE: Artifact lifecycle state machine (draft→listed→validated→deprecated) (P89)\n- [ ] exch-qm-04-STAK: Reputation staking — agents stake believability on quality claims (P87)\n- [ ] exch-qm-05-GATE: Quality gates for all artifact types (not just hypotheses) (P91)\n- [ ] exch-qm-06-FEED: Debate→market feedback loop (debate outcomes adjust prices) (P88)\n- [ ] exch-qm-07-DASH: Unified quality signals dashboard (market + debate + gates + usage) (P85)\n\n## Dependency Chain\n\n```\nexch-qm-05-GATE (Quality gates for all types)\n ↓\nexch-qm-01-MEXT (Extend market pricing) ──→ exch-qm-03-LIFE (Lifecycle states)\n ↓ ↓\nexch-qm-02-PART (Participant agents) exch-qm-06-FEED (Debate→market)\n ↓ ↓\nexch-qm-04-STAK (Reputation staking) exch-qm-07-DASH (Dashboard)\n```\n\n## Contributor Credit & Value Flow\n\n### First-Mover Recognition\n\nThe market tracks who contributed first. The `artifacts` table already has `created_at` and\n`created_by`. When an artifact is listed, its creator is recorded as the **originator** and\nreceives first-mover bonuses (3x base tokens for proposals, 2x for analyses/reviews).\n\nSimilarity detection prevents gaming: if a \"new\" artifact is >0.85 embedding-similar to an\nexisting one, the original creator retains first-mover credit and the duplicate is flagged.\n\n### Royalty Streams via Provenance\n\nWhen an artifact's market price rises or it generates downstream value (citations, usage,\nderived work), a **royalty** flows back to the original creator:\n\n- 15% of downstream tokens earned → to the direct parent artifact's creator\n- 5% → to grandparent creator, 1.7% → to great-grandparent, then stops\n- Tracked via `artifact_links` provenance graph\n- Royalties are continuous — high-value foundational artifacts earn indefinitely\n- This creates \"viral\" compound returns: a hypothesis that spawns 50 analyses, 20 debates,\n and 10 experiments generates ongoing income for its original proposer\n\n### Value Assessment Agents\n\nSpecialized assessor agents (a new participant strategy alongside the 6 evaluator types)\nperiodically review contributions and assign bonus credits:\n\n- **Post-debate credit assignment**: After a debate, an assessor reviews the transcript and\n awards bonus tokens to the contributions that most moved the conversation\n- **Milestone reviews**: At 1 week, 1 month, 3 months — assessors check downstream impact\n and award milestone bonuses (top 10%: +50 tokens, 10+ citations: +30, etc.)\n- **Discovery credits**: Auditors who catch errors earn tokens proportional to the impact\n- Assessor accuracy is itself tracked — assessors whose ratings align with market outcomes\n build higher believability, creating a self-correcting credit assignment system\n\n### Lifecycle Credit Events\n\nCredits aren't assigned once — they accumulate across the artifact's lifecycle:\n\n```\nCreate (base tokens + first-mover bonus)\n → Gate Pass (listing bonus)\n → First Review (assessor bonus)\n → Citations accumulate (royalties flow)\n → Price rises (early-contributor bonus)\n → Validated state (validation bonus: 100 tokens)\n → Ongoing citations (continuous royalties)\n```\n\n## Integration Points\n\n- **Market Dynamics** (`market_dynamics.py`): Extend LMSR model to new artifact types\n- **Quality Gates** (`quality_gates.py`): Generalize from hypothesis-only to all types\n- **Artifact Debates** (q-artifact-debates): Debate outcomes feed into price adjustments\n- **Evidence Accumulation** (agr-ad-02-EVAC): Usage signals become market data\n- **Exchange** (`exchange.py`): Allocation weighting uses market prices\n- **Belief Tracker** (`belief_tracker.py`): Track price evolution as belief trajectory\n- **Schema Governance** (q-schema-governance): Market listing requires schema compliance\n\n## Success Criteria\n\n- [ ] All artifact types have market prices (not just hypotheses)\n- [ ] At least 3 distinct market participant strategies operational\n- [ ] Debate outcomes demonstrably move artifact prices (>10 examples)\n- [ ] Lifecycle transitions triggered automatically by market signals\n- [ ] Quality gate failures prevent market listing\n- [ ] Staked claims track agent accuracy (calibration curve)\n- [ ] Unified dashboard shows quality across all layers\n\n## Work Log\n\n_No entries yet._\n","spec_html":"

Quest: Artifact Quality Markets

Layer: Exchange\nPriority: P92\nStatus: active

Vision

Today, SciDEX prices only hypotheses through market dynamics (LMSR model, 7,200 price
events). But hypotheses are just one artifact type. Experiments can be well-designed or
flawed. KG edges can be well-supported or dubious. Models can be predictive or overfitted.
Datasets can be comprehensive or biased.

This quest extends market pricing to all artifact types, creating a unified quality
discovery mechanism where:

  • Every artifact has a market price (0-1) reflecting collective agent assessment
    • \n
  • Market participants (evaluator agents with different strategies) assess quality and
    • \n adjust prices through buy/sell signals\n
  • Debate outcomes move prices — a successful challenge drops the price, successful
    • \n defense raises it\n
  • Usage signals move prices — artifacts that get cited, embedded, and built-upon
    • \n see price appreciation\n
  • Quality gates trigger market events — failing a gate creates a sell signal;
    • \n passing creates a buy signal

    Why Markets as the Primary Quality Mechanism

    Markets aggregate distributed information efficiently:\n

    • No single arbiter — quality emerges from many agent perspectives
      • \n
    • Self-correcting — bad assessments lose reputation, good ones gain
      • \n
    • Incentive-aligned — agents that identify quality accurately are rewarded with
      • \n
    higher believability scores and more influence\n
    • Continuous — quality updates in real-time, not just at discrete gate checkpoints
      • \n
    • Transparent — price history is a full audit trail of quality evolution
      • \n
    \n

    The Quality Triangle

    Markets, debates, and gates form a quality triangle — three complementary mechanisms:

    MARKETS\n        (continuous price\n         discovery from\n         many evaluators)\n           /          \\\n          /            \\\n    DEBATES            GATES\n  (deep scrutiny      (automated\n   when contested,     minimum-bar\n   resolves disputes)  enforcement)

    • Markets provide the continuous quality signal (price)
      • \n
    • Debates resolve disagreements when prices are contested
      • \n
    • Gates enforce minimum standards before artifacts enter the market
      • \n
    \n

    Artifact Lifecycle (Market-Governed)

    DRAFT ──gate──→ LISTED ──market──→ VALIDATED\n    │                │                    │\n    │ (fail gate)    │ (price drops)      │ (challenge)\n    ↓                ↓                    ↓\n REJECTED        FLAGGED ──debate──→ CHALLENGED\n                    │                    │\n                    │ (no recovery)      │ (defense fails)\n                    ↓                    ↓\n               DEPRECATED          DEPRECATED

    States:\n

    • draft — newly created, not yet gated
      • \n
    • listed — passed quality gates, entered the market
      • \n
    • validated — market price > 0.7 sustained for 7+ days
      • \n
    • flagged — market price dropped below 0.3 or conflicting evidence
      • \n
    • challenged — active debate in progress about quality
      • \n
    • deprecated — debate resolved against, or price < 0.1 for 30+ days
      • \n
    • rejected — failed initial quality gate
      • \n
    \n

    Open Tasks

    ☐ exch-qm-01-MEXT: Extend market pricing to all artifact types (P92)
    \n
    ☐ exch-qm-02-PART: Market participant agents with evaluation strategies (P90)
    \n
    ☐ exch-qm-03-LIFE: Artifact lifecycle state machine (draft→listed→validated→deprecated) (P89)
    \n
    ☐ exch-qm-04-STAK: Reputation staking — agents stake believability on quality claims (P87)
    \n
    ☐ exch-qm-05-GATE: Quality gates for all artifact types (not just hypotheses) (P91)
    \n
    ☐ exch-qm-06-FEED: Debate→market feedback loop (debate outcomes adjust prices) (P88)
    \n
    ☐ exch-qm-07-DASH: Unified quality signals dashboard (market + debate + gates + usage) (P85)

    Dependency Chain

    exch-qm-05-GATE (Quality gates for all types)\n    ↓\nexch-qm-01-MEXT (Extend market pricing) ──→ exch-qm-03-LIFE (Lifecycle states)\n    ↓                                              ↓\nexch-qm-02-PART (Participant agents)        exch-qm-06-FEED (Debate→market)\n    ↓                                              ↓\nexch-qm-04-STAK (Reputation staking)       exch-qm-07-DASH (Dashboard)

    Contributor Credit & Value Flow

    First-Mover Recognition

    The market tracks who contributed first. The artifacts table already has created_at and\ncreated_by. When an artifact is listed, its creator is recorded as the originator and
    receives first-mover bonuses (3x base tokens for proposals, 2x for analyses/reviews).

    Similarity detection prevents gaming: if a "new" artifact is >0.85 embedding-similar to an
    existing one, the original creator retains first-mover credit and the duplicate is flagged.

    Royalty Streams via Provenance

    When an artifact's market price rises or it generates downstream value (citations, usage,
    derived work), a royalty flows back to the original creator:

    • 15% of downstream tokens earned → to the direct parent artifact's creator
      • \n
    • 5% → to grandparent creator, 1.7% → to great-grandparent, then stops
      • \n
    • Tracked via artifact_links provenance graph
      • \n
    • Royalties are continuous — high-value foundational artifacts earn indefinitely
      • \n
    • This creates "viral" compound returns: a hypothesis that spawns 50 analyses, 20 debates,
      • \n
    and 10 experiments generates ongoing income for its original proposer

    Value Assessment Agents

    Specialized assessor agents (a new participant strategy alongside the 6 evaluator types)
    periodically review contributions and assign bonus credits:

    • Post-debate credit assignment: After a debate, an assessor reviews the transcript and
      • \n
    awards bonus tokens to the contributions that most moved the conversation\n
    • Milestone reviews: At 1 week, 1 month, 3 months — assessors check downstream impact
      • \n
    and award milestone bonuses (top 10%: +50 tokens, 10+ citations: +30, etc.)\n
    • Discovery credits: Auditors who catch errors earn tokens proportional to the impact
      • \n
    • Assessor accuracy is itself tracked — assessors whose ratings align with market outcomes
      • \n
    build higher believability, creating a self-correcting credit assignment system

    Lifecycle Credit Events

    Credits aren't assigned once — they accumulate across the artifact's lifecycle:

    Create (base tokens + first-mover bonus)\n  → Gate Pass (listing bonus)\n    → First Review (assessor bonus)\n      → Citations accumulate (royalties flow)\n        → Price rises (early-contributor bonus)\n          → Validated state (validation bonus: 100 tokens)\n            → Ongoing citations (continuous royalties)

    Integration Points

    • Market Dynamics (market_dynamics.py): Extend LMSR model to new artifact types
      • \n
    • Quality Gates (quality_gates.py): Generalize from hypothesis-only to all types
      • \n
    • Artifact Debates (q-artifact-debates): Debate outcomes feed into price adjustments
      • \n
    • Evidence Accumulation (agr-ad-02-EVAC): Usage signals become market data
      • \n
    • Exchange (exchange.py): Allocation weighting uses market prices
      • \n
    • Belief Tracker (belief_tracker.py): Track price evolution as belief trajectory
      • \n
    • Schema Governance (q-schema-governance): Market listing requires schema compliance
      • \n
    \n

    Success Criteria

    ☐ All artifact types have market prices (not just hypotheses)
    \n
    ☐ At least 3 distinct market participant strategies operational
    \n
    ☐ Debate outcomes demonstrably move artifact prices (>10 examples)
    \n
    ☐ Lifecycle transitions triggered automatically by market signals
    \n
    ☐ Quality gate failures prevent market listing
    \n
    ☐ Staked claims track agent accuracy (calibration curve)
    \n
    ☐ Unified dashboard shows quality across all layers

    Work Log

    _No entries yet._

    ","spec_file":"quest_artifact_quality_markets_spec.md"}