28 Oct 2026: This page has been shared with the author. This link is publicly accessible, but not widely shared. Largely AI generated, and may contain errors. Please do not see this as definitive,

A living list for the author. Prepared by The Unjournal, last updated 28 October 2026. Concerns the February 2025 PDF of Arvo Muñoz Morán, "Technical Report: The Value of Existential Risk Mitigation" (Rethink Priorities), archived at doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23479022.

About this page

Notation and statements

  1. The index letter i is undefined. The value equations (2 to 6), the Lemma 1 proof and section 12 use i, which is never defined. It should be t. As printed, the sums aren't well formed. The closed forms in Table 2 only come out right with i read as t. Sent 31 July 2026 (as "i and t used interchangeably"); the "undefined" framing is new on 28 October.

    Human suggested and validated - David Reinstein

  2. Two logistic specifications. Equation 6 gives a stretched-exponential form and Equation 7 the standard logistic. Section 5.0.7 uses the latter, while footnote 13's parameters refer to the former. Choose one, or label them V4a and V4b and state which each figure uses. Sent 31 July.

  3. Equation 9 versus Table 2. Equation 9 states E(w) = v_c/r_c, but the sum from t = 1 gives v_c(1 − r_c)/r_c, which is what Table 2 reports. This is a t = 0 versus t = 1 convention difference with Ord. Equation 9 also implicitly assumes T → ∞. Sent 31 July.

  4. Footnote 11. v′ is defined identically to v; presumably a typo for (v′₁, v′₂, …). Sent 31 July.

  5. Broken cross-reference. "The scope of 1 and 1" near footnote 25 presumably means Proposition 1 and Corollary 1. Sent 31 July.

  6. Which value sequences feed the results. The text doesn't say whether Table 3 and Figures 4 to 6 use the section 11 adjusted sequences or the unadjusted ones. Sent 31 July. We've since checked from the plotted ceilings that they use the adjusted sequences. For example, the linear constant-risk panel tops out near 2,450, against about 200,800 unadjusted. Stating this explicitly is still worthwhile. Checked 28 October.

  7. Corollary 1 wording. Tighter as "converges to a strictly positive value," with the polynomial-or-logistic growth condition carried into the statement. Sent 31 July.

  8. Great Filters wording. The construction (2F alternating eras, starting with a filter) is correct. But "two filters, with two lower-risk eras of lower risk after each of them" reads as four low-risk eras. Suggest "with a lower-risk era after each of them." A small timeline diagram would remove the ambiguity. New, 28 October. — Human suggested and validated - David Reinstein

  9. Closed-form derivations: index slips. The polylogarithm results are correct. In the general-n derivation, "Setting z = 1 − r_c, k = 1" includes a stray "k = 1". Some summation indices don't match their terms (i! where the sum runs over t). Please also confirm the Stirling numbers are typeset with braces, not parentheses, which would read as binomial coefficients. Optional: the numerators 1, 1 + z, 1 + 4z + z² are the Eulerian polynomials, and the cubic numerator simplifies to (1 − r_c)(6 − 6r_c + r_c²). New, 28 October.

Summary sentences that don't match Table 3

Found while rebuilding the model; see the replication page of the dashboard.

  1. p. 30, "11 million times bigger under cubic value compared to constant": Table 3 gives a Time of Perils cubic-to-constant ratio of about 6.2 million at every persistence. Sent 19 October; checked.
  2. pp. 31–32, "two billion v_c (under cubic and time of perils assuming f is one basis point)": at f = 0.0001, Table 3 gives 5.46×10^5 at P = 50. About 2.8×10^9 corresponds to f = 0.5. Sent 19 October; checked.
  3. p. 31, "E(M) can increase by up to 30 times" (Figure 8): the plotted curve rises roughly 300-fold, from about 0.0001 at P = 1 to about 0.029 at P = 1,000. Sent 19 October; checked.

Figure 4