Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Thresholds, Not Timetables is the fourth paper in the Knowledge Thermodynamics Recursive Planning Science (KTRPS) series and the first designed to be scored against future evidence. It specifies a bounded, dated, reproducible sampling protocol for a single-date public-record snapshot of the divergence of the AI platform landscape into a closed, provider-gated stack and an open-weight, self-hostable stack. A pre-registered bounding analysis covers deployments the public record cannot show. The protocol is demonstrated on an illustrative candidate snapshot and coded under the KTRPS commitment register and five-dimension correction-capacity instrument. The paper performs an ex ante threshold estimation for two pre-specified scenarios of restoring oversight of deployed open-weight systems in the European Union over a 36-month horizon: artefact-level oversight (Scenario S) and oversight through compute and hosting infrastructure (Scenario Sβ). Seven boundary-conditioned predictions are pre-registered with comparators, scoring rules, statuses and probabilities. They concern thresholds, feasibility boundaries, binding constraints and comparative predictive value, not calendar dates. The comparative claim (Prediction 1) is scored by a ridge-penalized out-of-sample comparison and a Bayesian model comparison, with decision thresholds on both sides and a pre-deposited analysis of the design’s operating characteristics. The paper reports no outcome data. The candidate snapshot contributes no data to scoring; predictions are scored against the formal snapshot collected on the registration date. Keywords: KTRPS; open-weight models; AI governance; human oversight; pre-registration; predictive evidence; threshold proximity; correction capacity; commitment register; bounded snapshot protocol; Bayesian model comparison; selection-bias bounding Additional descriptions Methods: Pre-registered, single-date public-record snapshot. Source pages are archived and SHA-256 hashed. Ridge-penalized cross-validation and Bayes factors under a default g-prior mixture at three registered scales. Notes: Companion white paper: The Institutional Mechanics of Open-Weight AI Oversight. Where the two differ, this protocol governs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
E. Katz (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: