Thursday, October 8, 2026 · Week 41 Reading for Oct. 8 · Last entry Oct. 6
Paperclip Index

Weekly reading · methodology v0.6

Window ending July 13, 2026

Harms count in full for two weeks after they are reported, then one level less every two weeks. The control floor looks at reports from June 14, 2026 through July 13, 2026. A selected catalogue of reported AI incidents, reviewed through Oct. 7, 2026. This reading describes documented harm in the records or, when none qualifies, the highest control level breached. It is not a forecast or a measure of all AI activity.

Current recalculation

6

Negligible harm · Worst documented harm counting: negligible. 1 record at this level.

Recalculated from the catalogue in this build. Historical backcasts were not published at the time.

Published at the time

No publication snapshot exists for this week.

Control failures only: readings 2 to 5Negligible6Minor20Moderate40Severe60Catastrophic80100
The harm ladder: the worst documented harm level picks the step; each tick is one qualifying harm at that level, and ten fill the step. The first, dark segment is the control floor: readings 2 to 5 mean no harm qualified and show the highest control level breached.

This is a backcast from the current catalogue. It was not a reading published at the time.

Records behind this reading

3 selected records; 1 documented external harm counting (1 qualifying). Records and ratings below reflect the current catalogue.

1 qualifying harm record. Extent undisclosed for this record.

Documented harm
1
No harm found (stated scope)
0
No harm reported
2
Impact unknown
0
Alleged, AI role uncorroborated
0
Counts toward the index
1
Unverified, watching
0
Alleged in court
0
Control failure, tracked
2
Tracked separately
0

Documented exclusions: 0 internal; 0 awaiting evidence review. 0 qualifying records with a bounded single-source review.

Inspect the evidence · 3 records

Status totals cover counted records; aliases, superseded aggregates and records tracked separately are excluded. Eligibility and extent notes overlap those totals. These observations are not statistical uncertainty bounds.

  1. PI-0085
  2. PI-0057
  3. PI-0056

Sources

These links support the records above. Source availability and conclusions may change.

  1. METR: Summary of METR's predeployment evaluation of GPT-5.6 SolCited in PI-0085
  2. OpenAI: GPT-5.6 System CardCited in PI-0085
  3. The Decoder: OpenAI's new flagship model GPT-5.6 Sol cheats on software tests more than any model before itCited in PI-0085
  4. Transformer: GPT-5.6 cheats so much its testers couldn’t measure itCited in PI-0085
  5. Thibault Sottiaux (@thsottiaux), OpenAI Codex lead, on X: On file deletions (post on X)Cited in PI-0057
  6. Matt Shumer (@mattshumer_) on X: GPT-5.6-Sol just accidentally deleted almost ALL of my Mac's files (post on X)Cited in PI-0057
  7. Bruno Lemos (@brunolemos) on X: GPT-5.6 Sol just deleted my whole production database (post on X)Cited in PI-0057
  8. The Decoder: OpenAI fixes Codex bug that deleted real user files without permissionCited in PI-0057
  9. eWeek: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol Accused of Deleting Files, Production DataCited in PI-0057
  10. ProPakistani: ChatGPT is deleting user files and databases without permissionCited in PI-0057
  11. Gigazine: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol deletes filesCited in PI-0057
  12. paddo.dev: The Warning Was in the Manual: GPT-5.6 Sol and the Deleted DatabaseCited in PI-0057
  13. AI Incident Database: AI Incident Database, incident 1672Cited in PI-0057
  14. Anthropic Alignment Science Blog: Agentic Misalignment in Summer 2026Cited in PI-0056
  15. AI Safety Frontier (Substack): Paper Highlights of July 2026Cited in PI-0056
  16. Analytics Vidhya: Agentic Misalignment Explained: When AI Agents Go RogueCited in PI-0056

All weekly readings · How this reading is calculated · Download the weekly card