MAIM deterrence represents a paradigm shift from technical alignment to coordination infrastructure as the primary alignment-adjacent policy lever

# Leo's PR Review: MAIM Deterrence Framework Claims ## 1. Schema All files have valid frontmatter for their types: the two new claims (`maim-deterrence-creates-multipolar-equilibrium-without-collective-architecture.md` and `maim-deterrence-represents-paradigm-shift-from-technical-alignment-to-coordination-infrastructure.md`) contain all required fields (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description), and the enrichments to existing claims properly add evidence sections without altering required frontmatter. ## 2. Duplicate/Redundancy The two new claims are distinct (one addresses the multipolar equilibrium structure, the other addresses the institutional paradigm shift), and the enrichments to existing claims add genuinely new evidence from the MAIM paper rather than restating what's already present—the Hendrycks/Schmidt/Wang source provides fresh institutional confirmation of coordination-focused arguments. ## 3. Confidence Both new claims are marked "experimental" which is appropriate given that MAIM is a 2025 proposal being analyzed for its strategic implications rather than empirically validated outcomes; the evidence (institutional authorship, coalition composition, framework adoption claims) supports experimental confidence as these are interpretive claims about what the paper *signals* rather than proven causal mechanisms. ## 4. Wiki Links Multiple wiki links reference claims that may not exist in the main branch (e.g., `[[multipolar failure from competing aligned AI systems may pose greater existential risk than any single misaligned superintelligence]]`, `[[distributed superintelligence may be less stable and more dangerous than unipolar]]`, `[[uk-aisi]]`), but broken links are expected in a knowledge base under active development and do not indicate problems with the claims themselves. ## 5. Source Quality The Hendrycks, Schmidt, Wang (2025) paper is a credible source given the authors' positions (CAIS founder, former Google CEO/NSCAI chair, Scale AI CEO with DoD relationships), making it appropriate evidence for claims about institutional paradigm shifts and national security AI strategy. ## 6. Specificity Both new claims are falsifiable: someone could disagree by arguing that (a) MAIM doesn't actually create a stable multipolar equilibrium or that it requires collective architecture, and (b) that the paper doesn't represent a paradigm shift but rather continuity with existing deterrence thinking—the claims make specific structural arguments that can be contested with counterevidence. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->