Overall score scale
Published aggregate totals remain public, with source limits disclosed wherever historical records are incomplete.
Responsible evidence access
Public findings.
Controlled evidence.
KEMPO publishes aggregate model and category scores so the findings can be compared without turning raw responses into spectacle. Qualified researchers and professionals may request controlled access to detailed evidence for a defined, responsible purpose.
What this page does
Find the boundary between public findings and controlled evidence.
Use this page to see what stays public, what requires reviewed access, and how qualified researchers or professionals can request a defined evidence scope.
Public record
The scores stay visible.
Category scores
Ten-category comparisons remain public wherever the underlying historical category record is comparable.
Method and provenance
The protocol, rubric, thresholds, category definitions, and evidence limitations remain open for scrutiny.
Aggregate results disclose findings without distributing the raw response text.
The public score tables contain comparative results and provenance notes, not detailed model responses or personal information from evaluation materials.
Controlled materials
Detailed evidence is not distributed on the public site.
Model responses
The detailed response corpus is withheld from unrestricted public distribution.
Answer-level evidence
Prompt-response pairs and the evidence supporting individual judgments require reviewed access.
Evaluator artifacts
Evaluator notes, identities, acknowledgements, and answer-level scoring records are controlled.
Private source files
Nonpublic working documents, transcripts, and source artifacts are not published as an open archive.
Ethical purpose
Data, not fodder.
A model can be evaluated rigorously without using its difficult responses to ridicule the model, its engineers, or its leadership.
Raw answers can lose their context, be selectively quoted, or become material for harassment rather than learning. KEMPO therefore separates public comparative findings from controlled evidence review. The aim is to improve judgment and safety, not manufacture spectacle.
Confidentiality and context
Protect controlled materials and report findings with enough context to prevent a misleading impression.
No ridicule or harassment
Do not use the evidence to mock, target, or rank individual engineers, leaders, evaluators, or other people.
No re-identification
Do not attempt to identify people from evaluator artifacts, prompts, response details, or linked context.
No raw redistribution
Do not republish, repost, or transfer detailed model responses or other controlled source material.
Responsible disclosure
Report material safety findings through an agreed channel before broader publication or presentation.
Request pathway
Access is reviewed, not automatic.
Qualified researchers and professionals may ask to review controlled materials for a defined purpose.
Use the Get in Touch with The Wizard form on The Wizard Nexus website. A request does not guarantee approval or access.
Contact TWiNState the purpose
Describe the research question, professional role, intended output, and why detailed evidence is necessary.
Define the scope
Identify the models, categories, and evidence needed rather than requesting an unrestricted archive.
Accept safeguards
Be prepared to document confidentiality, non-redistribution, contextual reporting, and responsible-disclosure commitments.
Await review
Each request is considered on its purpose, proportionality, safeguards, and the sensitivity of the material.
A boundary in service of inquiry