---
name: result-to-claim
description: "Use when experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they do not, and what evidence is still missing. A secondary Codex agent evaluates results against intended claims and routes to the next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish - before writing the paper or running ablations."
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Agent
---

# Result-to-Claim Gate

Experiments produce numbers; this gate decides what those numbers *mean*. Collect results from available sources, get an objective judgment, then route based on the verdict.

## Context: $ARGUMENTS

## Constants

- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.4`** - Used via a secondary Codex agent for objective claim assessment.

## When to Use

- After a set of experiments completes (main results, not just sanity checks)
- Before committing to claims in a paper or review response
- When results are ambiguous and you need an objective second opinion

## Workflow

### Step 1: Collect Results

Gather experiment data from whatever sources are available in the project:

1. **W&B** (preferred): `wandb.Api().run("<entity>/<project>/<run_id>").history()` - metrics, training curves, comparisons
2. **`EXPERIMENT_LOG.md`** - full results table with baselines and verdicts
3. **`EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md`** - check which experiments are done vs still running
4. **Log files** - `ssh server "tail -100 /path/to/training.log"` if no other source
5. **`docs/research_contract.md`** or project notes - intended claims and experiment design

Assemble the key information:

- What experiments were run (method, dataset, config)
- Main metrics and baseline comparisons (deltas)
- The intended claim these experiments were designed to test
- Any known confounds or caveats

### Step 2: Secondary Codex Judgment

Send the collected results to a secondary Codex agent for objective evaluation:

```text
spawn_agent:
  model: REVIEWER_MODEL
  reasoning_effort: xhigh
  message: |
    RESULT-TO-CLAIM EVALUATION

    I need you to judge whether experimental results support the intended claim.

    Intended claim: [the claim these experiments test]

    Experiments run:
    [list experiments with method, dataset, metrics]

    Results:
    [paste key numbers, comparison deltas, significance]

    Baselines:
    [baseline numbers and sources - reproduced or from paper]

    Known caveats:
    [any confounding factors, limited datasets, missing comparisons]

    Please evaluate:
    1. claim_supported: yes | partial | no
    2. what_results_support: what the data actually shows
    3. what_results_dont_support: where the data falls short of the claim
    4. missing_evidence: specific evidence gaps
    5. suggested_claim_revision: if the claim should be strengthened, weakened, or reframed
    6. next_experiments_needed: specific experiments to fill gaps (if any)
    7. confidence: high | medium | low

    Be honest. Do not inflate claims beyond what the data supports.
    A single positive result on one dataset does not support a general claim.
```

If delegation is unavailable, run the same evaluation locally and mark the verdict `[pending external review]` instead of blocking the pipeline.

### Step 3: Parse and Normalize

Extract structured fields from the response:

```markdown
- claim_supported: yes | partial | no
- what_results_support: "..."
- what_results_dont_support: "..."
- missing_evidence: "..."
- suggested_claim_revision: "..."
- next_experiments_needed: "..."
- confidence: high | medium | low
```

### Step 4: Route Based on Verdict

#### `no` - Claim not supported

1. Record a postmortem in `findings.md`:
   - What was tested, what failed, and hypotheses for why
   - Constraints for future attempts (what **not** to try again)
2. Update the project pipeline status in project notes
3. Decide whether to pivot to the next idea from `IDEA_CANDIDATES.md` or try an alternative approach

#### `partial` - Claim partially supported

1. Update the working claim to reflect what **is** supported
2. Record the gap in `findings.md`
3. Design and run supplementary experiments to fill evidence gaps
4. Re-run `/result-to-claim` after supplementary experiments complete
5. If the same claim gets multiple `partial` verdicts, record the analysis in `findings.md` and consider narrowing the claim scope or switching ideas

#### `yes` - Claim supported

1. Record the confirmed claim in project notes
2. If ablation studies are incomplete, trigger `/ablation-planner`
3. If all evidence is in, move to paper writing

## Rules

- **The secondary Codex agent is the judge, not the local executor.** The local executor collects evidence and routes; the reviewer agent evaluates. This prevents post-hoc rationalization.
- Do not inflate claims beyond what the data supports. If the verdict says `partial`, do not round up to `yes`.
- A single positive result on one dataset does not support a general claim. Be honest about scope.
- If `confidence` is low, treat the judgment as inconclusive and add experiments rather than committing to a claim.
- If reviewer delegation is unavailable, make the best local judgment you can and mark it `[pending external review]`.
- Always record the verdict and reasoning in `findings.md`, regardless of outcome.