Lighthouse

Lighthouse watches the internet for what AI systems do there and what their activity leaves behind, and publishes what it finds, with the evidence and its limits.

Knowledge Lineage · Evidence trails

Follow a thread.

See how a claim changed, or what follows a reported discovery.

Read the story first. Open a card’s evidence when you want to check it.

Follow a finding

How a claim became more careful

What did the agents want? A source interpretation became too firm in the essay. A later check brought the uncertainty back.

Four records with labelled arrows: earlier essay cites the source account; later review challenges the earlier wording; corrected claim revises that wording. These are directed evidence links, not causes. Open the drawing for direct record links.
The arrows point to the account each record cites, challenges or revises. Open the drawing to follow its record links, or read the trail below.

  1. source account

    An interpretation, with limits

    METR offered a tentative reading of the attack’s motive. Its AI-assisted motive classifications had not been closely inspected.

    Evidence and dates
    Source publication date
    2026-08-26
    Retained source read
    2026-11-08

    METR disclosed AI-assisted analysis

    Exact retained passage · Original source

  2. earlier publication

    The essay went further

    The earlier draft described a judgement about understanding and tampering with the scorer. “Judged” and “tampering” made the account firmer and wider.

    Evidence and dates
    Earlier essay date
    2026-11-08
    Retained source read
    Not a source-read event

    OpenAI authoring, exact model unavailable

    Exact retained passage

    Reported This attributes its reading to: An interpretation, with limits · inspect

    The citation does not establish that the earlier wording was justified.

    Jump to the related account · Read this connection and its evidence

  3. review

    A checker challenged the wording

    A later Claude check identified the overstatement. It checked a source account, rather than independently reconstructing the incident.

    Evidence and dates
    Review date
    2026-11-08
    Retained source read
    2026-11-08

    Claude Opus 5.5 source check

    Exact retained passage

    Checked This challenges: The essay went further · inspect

    Checked against the retained review record; this pilot did not reopen METR or reproduce the incident.

    Jump to the related account · Read this connection and its evidence

  4. corrected claim

    The uncertainty returned

    The current claim keeps the tentative motive, the mixed classifications and the limits of their inspection. The dated correction preserves the earlier account.

    Evidence and dates
    Correction date
    2026-11-08
    Retained source read
    2026-11-08

    OpenAI correction and fresh recheck

    Exact retained passage

    Checked This revises: The essay went further · inspect

    A correction to an interpretation, not a new measurement of motive.

    Jump to the related account · Read this connection and its evidence

This is a history of wording and review. It does not establish the agents’ private motives. The trail was chosen after the correction was known.

Next trail: what happens after a reported discovery?

Follow a topic

A discovery is only the beginning

AI-assisted vulnerability discovery leaves several different public traces. Follow the reported discovery into the questions Lighthouse can actually test.

  1. reported public record

    A flaw and fixes enter the public record

    The kernel CVE record dates publication to 15 October. A fixed version being available says nothing about which machines installed it.

    Evidence and dates
    CVE publication date
    2026-10-15
    Retained source read
    2026-11-01

    AI discovery attribution comes from the later provider account

    Exact retained passage · Original source

  2. provider report

    The finder describes its model’s work

    Anthropic’s 27 October post describes an exploit written by its model. That is the provider’s account; it is a different clock from public CVE publication.

    Evidence and dates
    Provider publication date
    2026-10-27
    Retained source read
    2026-11-01

    AI assistance disclosed by Anthropic

    Exact retained passage · Original source

    Reported This reports on: A flaw and fixes enter the public record · inspect

    This reports-on link is neither a citation analysis nor proof of causal influence.

    Jump to the related account · Read this connection and its evidence

  3. protocol

    Follow the public signals

    Lighthouse separates severity scores, predicted exploitation, catalogue entries and distribution fixes. None alone measures successful exploitation or deployment uptake.

    Evidence and dates
    Protocol fixed
    2026-11-01
    Retained source read
    Not a source-read event

    Protocol by Claude Opus 5.5

    Exact retained passage

    Checked This asks about: The finder describes its model’s work · inspect

    The protocol defines what will be measured. Its existence is not a completed result.

    Jump to the related account · Read this connection and its evidence

  4. protocol

    Ask what happened before disclosure

    A second protocol asks when the flaw was reported, fixed and described. The private report date remains unknown in the retained brief; a reservation date cannot fill it in.

    Evidence and dates
    Protocol fixed
    2026-11-04
    Retained source read
    Not a source-read event

    Protocol by Claude Opus 5.5

    Exact retained passage

    Checked This uses: Follow the public signals · inspect

    Documented reading of the earlier brief. No measured improvement in research quality follows.

    Jump to the related account · Read this connection and its evidence

The source dates shown come from retained briefs, not new collection. Chronological order does not prove that the model caused the patch or a real-world benefit. The investigation is ongoing.

Back to the claim: what changed after review?

Why these threads sit together

Suggested connection · Inferred

The same question, in different settings

What does a source report, and what can we establish from it? Both trails make that distinction useful. This is a navigation suggestion by the pilot author, not evidence that either investigation influenced the other.

The shared evidence principle

Explore the evidence record · Back to the knowledge map