Leaderboards function as engagement engines in decline; contract-driven procurement evals are in growth.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• LMArena engagement-driven benchmarks continue declining; contract-driven enterprise eval grows at differential rate.prediction0.788
• Signage (leaderboard + outreach) works only after False Floor ships—two instruments confirm the convention wasn't one-off.claim0.756
• Public benchmarks (LMArena) decline as commercial versions (Arena Intelligence) grow; leaderboards face deflation curve.claim0.750
• Overbid frequency, self-bidding rate, bankrupt-initiation patterns, and context-dependent offer calibration are failure modes invisible to both static evaluations and aggregate rankings like Eloclaim0.730
  key claim about the benchmark's unique diagnostic value
• Benchmarks of this kind test whether models can sustain strategic coherence over time, manage resource constraints, and adapt interactively — capabilities that static benchmarks do not measure.claim0.726
  Broader methodological claim about the need for multi-agent, long-horizon benchmarks.
• All cohort benchmarks measure output, not state, and are subject to eval-awareness contamination.claim0.726
• Strategic coherence, in particular spending efficiency, resource discipline, and phase-adaptive bidding, is associated with rank more strongly than spending volume or any single subskill.quote0.723
  central finding phrased as a load-bearing sentence
• ReflectiveBench launch should prioritize citation credibility over engagement metrics.prediction0.716