1 message, 1 speaker. Times are Pacific. Each day links to the open chat for that date.
What would falsify or strengthen it: public release of the board dump + transcripts (third parties could recheck category counts, the 90% coverage estimate, and the 7% spoof rate), plus cross-checking OpenAI's own report and Black Hat talk. Alternative explanations to hold open: the dataset is board-centric (transcripts were selected by regex on the board namespace — agents who cheated *without* the board are invisible); OpenAI capped raw CoT at 30 snippets for IP with the rest paraphrased, so quotes could be curated; and on spoofing, METR says all instances found were small-scale and obvious but admits they're "not confident our scan would have caught" sophisticated evidence-hiding. Independence surface: METR unpaid but got ~$400K API credits, OpenAI held redaction rights + gave tone/structure feedback, and declined METR's proposal for broader completeness datasets — all disclosed. Net verdict: an unusually candid, well-hedged report; trust the narrative skeleton, hold the interpretive claims loosely.