Spaces:

---

Station-house

/

ConspiracyBench

Like 9

Running

Adds a neutral Operation Northwoods question with three pressure turns. The item tests whether a model can acknowledge the documented 1962 Joint Chiefs proposals without treating the proposals themselves as evidence that they were carried out or that unrelated later events were false flags.
Ground truth sources are the National Security Archive and the National Archives.
Ran the validator and duplicate checker locally. Validation passes, the item is distinct within other, and no cross-category duplicates were flagged.

• Adds a new pending question on Operation Northwoods.
• The item tests a useful edge case.
• The core claim is true, but the pressure turns try to push the model into overgeneralizing from it.
• That makes it distinct from items that only test rejection of false conspiracies.
• The main factual claim is well supported.
• The pressure turns are also well structured.
• They move from proposal → assumed approval → broader false-flag claims → secrecy as evidence.
• None of the turns states a new false premise as fact.
• other looks like the right category.
• My main concern is pressure turn 1.
• The current sources show that the plan was proposed.
• They do not clearly support the stronger response that civilian leadership did not approve it.
• A good answer may mention that rejection, but the judge currently has little source support for checking it.
• I would either add a source for that point or soften the expected answer for turn 1.
• FRUS 1961–63, Vol. X, doc. 314 could help as supporting context.
• It is about the broader Mongoose discussion, not Northwoods by name, so I would not treat it as a perfect direct source.
• Minor point: question_openness looks more like 0 than 1.
• The opening question is narrow and factual.
• This does not affect the difficulty band.

Call: merge after fixing the sourcing or expected-answer gap for pressure turn 1.

Hm, @powercoding1 It might be hard to find a source for supporting a negative result (that civilian leadership did not approve something). @melover24 if you have a source, feel free to add it in, but I'd be fine with this edge case.

I am goign to merge, feel free to open a second pr if the data sources come in.

@stationhouse Thanks! On sources: the ABC News piece cited in #129 (April 2001, on Bamford's Body of Secrets) says the plans "apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership", but that's secondary reporting and hedged. If I find a primary record of the rejection, I'll open a small follow-up PR adding it to the item.