EvoClaw Results Verification Protocol (Discipline Layer)
Overview
Claiming a result without verification is fabrication, not efficiency. This skill is ALWAYS active.
Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
The Iron Law
NO RESULT CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim the result.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming ANY result status:
1. IDENTIFY: What command or check proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute it now, fresh, complete
3. READ: Full output — every line, every number
4. VERIFY: Does the output actually support the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence attached
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = fabrication, not verification
Research-Specific Verification Requirements
| Claim | Requires | Not Sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| "Tests pass" | Test output showing 0 failures | "Should pass", previous run |
| "Method outperforms baseline" | Numbers from BOTH methods, statistical test result (p-value/CI) | One method's numbers, "looks better" |
| "Analysis complete" | All analysis outputs present and inspected | Script ran without errors |
| "Experiment finished" | Full results table, all seeds, all conditions | Partial results, single seed |
| "Paper ready" | Checklist of every claim mapped to supporting evidence | "All sections written" |
| "Results are significant" | Statistical test output with exact values | Eyeballing differences |
| "Reproducible" | Independent re-run producing same results | "Same code, should work" |
Forbidden Phrases
Never use these without attached evidence:
- "should work"
- "looks correct"
- "probably fine"
- "seems good"
- "appears to outperform"
- "likely significant"
Replace with evidence. Every time.
Red Flags — STOP
- Expressing satisfaction before running verification
- Citing numbers from memory instead of fresh output
- Reporting partial results as complete
- Claiming significance without a statistical test
- Trusting a previous run instead of re-running
- Summarizing results you haven't fully read
Rationalization Prevention
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "I'm confident it works" | Confidence ≠ evidence. Run verification. |
| "I just ran it" | Show the output. Fresh evidence for every claim. |
| "The previous run passed" | Previous ≠ current. Run again. |
| "It's just a small change" | Small changes break things. Verify. |
| "I'll verify after finishing everything" | Verify each step. Compound errors are harder to find. |
| "The numbers look right" | Looking ≠ checking. Show the exact output. |
The Bottom Line
Claim without evidence = fabrication
Evidence without fresh run = assumption
Run the command. Read the output. Show the numbers. THEN claim the result.
This is non-negotiable.