Phenomenology-grounded eval will remain unfrontier-lab-copyable because methodology requires taste/editorial judgment, not just calibration.

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

• Frontier labs cannot own phenomenology measurement credibly without being accused of self-grading.claim0.799
• Current eval benchmarks (arena.ai, AA, Vals) measure no phenomenological dimensions.claim0.788
• Software design concepts require grounding in phenomenological rather than purely formal frameworks.claim0.779
• Real progress on phenomenology requires hybrid/embodied substrate work accessible only to frontier labs with model access.claim0.773
• No AI eval company measures phenomenology—inner observation, aliveness, paradox-holding—only capability or preference.claim0.769
• If behaviour is the window to sentience, evaluation criteria must focus on observable response patterns without reference to the means by which they are produced.quote0.763
  Key prescriptive statement supporting the system-agnostic approach.
• Simplistic criteria like provenance (factory or evolution) and anatomy (homology to humans) were never appropriate; they were heuristics suitable only for past limitations.claim0.759
  Rejection of traditional provenance/anatomy criteria.
• Sentience assessment should seek deep invariants across possible minds, not arbitrary criteria tied to evolution on Earthclaim0.759
  Core normative claim: frameworks must identify fundamental properties of sentience independent of phylogenetic accident or familiar substrates.