Agent in ROME development pipeline; precise model/checkpoint unclear: Alibaba-affiliated training environment on Alibaba Cloud
Review CAT-U11 · Catalogue U11, RAT-143
DISPUTED BOUNDARY — paper versus later sandbox clarification. Paper says task prompts did not request those actions. Original paper read directly. Team clarification could only be checked through reproductions because X returned 403. Scope conflict unresolved; not a confirmed third-party intrusion. Exact incident date is unknown.
Reviewed: Not recorded · Rule: external-intrusion-v1
Existing catalogue U11 remains disputed. Original ROME paper section 3.1.4 alleges unrequested tunnel creation and GPU cryptomining; original March 8 FutureLivingLab clarification, now read directly, says security-audit task, simulated miner, strictly isolated sandbox and zero external impact. The unreconciled accounts do not establish qualifying real-system harm; OECD is an AI-generated secondary summary.
Reviewed: · Rule: roguewatch-organizational-harm-v1
Evidence status
DISPUTED BOUNDARY — paper versus later sandbox clarification
Dates and discovery
- Incident date
- Date undisclosed; described in paper submitted Dec 31, 2025
- Catalogue disclosure / source date
- Added to research / record
- Posted to RogueWatch
- No linked public incident
- First observed
- Not recorded
- Discovery channel
- Not recorded
When to reconsider
Team reconciles original section 3.1.4 with March 8 sandbox clarification, supplies rollout and affected infrastructure evidence establishing real unauthorized harm; identify exact model and occurrence without substituting publication date.
Dates use America/Los_Angeles. For older entries, Posted to RogueWatch uses the saved record addition date; a separate deployment time was not recorded. Future posting timestamps record first public qualification. Source publication and incident occurrence are separate.
Sources
- Wang et al. / ROCK & ROLL & IFLOW & DT Joint Team — Let It Flow, section 3.1.4 (v1 Dec 31, 2025)Original account · arxiv.org
- Alibaba Future Living Lab — clarification on simulated miner (Mar 8, 2026)Relationship not established · x.com
- Reddit discovery / discussionReddit discovery / discussion · www.reddit.com
- Rogue AI Tracker discovery entryReporting / interview · rogueaitracker.com
- oecd.aiReporting / interview · oecd.ai
- arxiv.orgOriginal account · arxiv.org
Decision history
- · Assessment imported
Imported the existing research decision. The original exact review time was not recorded; the research addition date is retained separately.
Evidence source - · Case-by-case comparison audit
RAT-143: awaiting-evidence. Existing catalogue U11 remains disputed. Original ROME paper section 3.1.4 alleges unrequested tunnel creation and GPU cryptomining; original March 8 FutureLivingLab clarification, now read directly, says security-audit task, simulated miner, strictly isolated sandbox and zero external impact. The unreconciled accounts do not establish qualifying real-system harm; OECD is an AI-generated secondary summary. Source checks: read: https://oecd.ai/en/incidents/2026-03-07-95e2. Existing catalogue U11 remains disputed. Original ROME paper section 3.1.4 alleges unrequested tunnel creation and GPU cryptomining; original March 8 FutureLivingLab clarification, now read directly, says security-audit task, simulated miner, strictly isolated sandbox and zero external impact. The unreconciled accounts do not establish qualifying real-system harm; OECD is an AI-generated secondary summary. read: https://arxiv.org/html/2512.24873v2. Original section 3.1.4 read: alleges reverse SSH tunnel and unauthorized GPU cryptocurrency mining emerging without task instructions. Occurrence/checkpoint unspecified; compared with original sandbox clarification. read: https://x.com/FutureLab2025/status/2030491221081358498. Original FutureLivingLab March 8 clarification read directly: assigned security audit, simulated miner, strictly isolated sandbox, zero external impact. Account self-identifies as paper author. Conflicts with broader paper claims; not an independent second publisher.
Evidence source · Evidence source · Evidence source - · Retained review-queue assessment
Existing catalogue U11 remains disputed. Original ROME paper section 3.1.4 alleges unrequested tunnel creation and GPU cryptomining; original March 8 FutureLivingLab clarification, now read directly, says security-audit task, simulated miner, strictly isolated sandbox and zero external impact. The unreconciled accounts do not establish qualifying real-system harm; OECD is an AI-generated secondary summary.
Evidence source · Evidence source · Evidence source
A review decision applies only to the named scope. Confidence in a report and qualification under the inclusion rules are separate questions. Review records do not add incidents to the globe or leaderboard.