Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Business · 03192ed8 Psychology · 03192ed8

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The source says organizations above roughly 100–150 people need more hierarchy or subgrouping because coordination overhead rises. weight 1.800000 evidence

Strongest counted contradiction: Dunbar's number concerns stable personal relationships, and its layers are about 5, 15, 50 and 150. weight 0.378000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: Speaker says organizations get misaligned once they pass 12 people and again past 150 people.; The excerpt says organizations become misaligned after passing 12 people and again after passing 150.

Review gaps: independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Supported.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “Organizations begin to lose alignment once they pass about 12 people and again once they pass about 150.” · 1 claim · 28 September 2026
• “Organizations begin to lose alignment once they pass about 12 people and again once they pass about 150.” · 1 claim · 28 September 2026
• “Dario Amodei has described an end state in which a single company such as Anthropic constitutes all private enterprise.” · 4 claims · 20 September 2026
• “The Navier–Stokes proof was produced by roughly 10,000 OpenAI agents working for about 88 hours.” · 28 claims · 20 September 2026

Evidence for

• Mostaque says organizations get misaligned past 12 and past 150 people.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance WEAK Steps 2 Counted

  Thresholds given without a source; 150 echoes the Dunbar number.

• Speaker says organizations get misaligned once they pass 12 people and again past 150 people.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

  Both thresholds and the misalignment effect appear in the passage. Offered as an aside from experience with no study cited, so it records the speaker's view rather than a measured threshold. 'Carthaginian demon of disorder mock' appears to be garbled transcription and does not bear on the claim.

• Amazon's two-pizza rule caps teams at six to eight: larger teams slow decisions and diffuse accountability.

  From Jeff Bezos' Two-Pizza Rule: Why Smaller Teams Always Get More Done (any.do blog) Read 2026-09-22 Relevance MODERATE Steps 1 Counted

  Supports the ~12-person alignment breakpoint via Amazon's team-size rule and its mechanism.

• Past about 150 people, humans need more restrictive rules and enforced norms to maintain order and stability.

  From Dunbar's Number and the Jetson Fallacy (Enterprise Engagement) Read 2026-09-22 Relevance MODERATE Steps 1 Counted

  Supports the ~150-person breakpoint via Dunbar's number; loss of informal alignment requires formal rules.

• The excerpt says organizations become misaligned after passing 12 people and again after passing 150.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

• The source places cohesion loss for software teams above roughly 10–15 people and distinguishes that from the 150-person community limit.

  From Dunbar's Number Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Supports the claim’s two-threshold structure, while qualifying the first threshold as an approximate 10–15 range rather than exactly 12.

• The source says organizations above roughly 100–150 people need more hierarchy or subgrouping because coordination overhead rises.

  From Dunbar's Number Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  Directly supports renewed coordination problems around the 100–150 range, including the claimed 150 threshold.

• Robin Dunbar’s interview describes coordination and commitment transitions around small groups, roughly 50, and 150; it supports the thresholds but not a universal deterministic loss of alignment.

  From The Psychology of Scaling Companies and Teams with Professor Robin Dunbar: Part 1 Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

  Transcript provides a direct source for the organizational-size thresholds and their coordination implications.

• A formal organizational model links increasing group size to coordination overload, identifies a modeled productivity maximum near 15 for one parameter set, and places stable social-group capacity broadly around 100–250 with a typical value of 150.

  From A theory of discrete hierarchies as optimal cost-adjusted productivity organisations Read 2026-09-28 Relevance MODERATE Steps 1 Counted

  The model supports coordination thresholds near the claim’s 12 and 150 figures, but the exact cutoffs are parameter-dependent and the paper does not establish a universal alignment law.

Evidence against

• Dunbar's number concerns stable personal relationships, and its layers are about 5, 15, 50 and 150.

  From Dunbar's number Read 2026-09-20 Relevance MODERATE Steps 2 Counted

  Two problems. Dunbar's nested layers are approximately 5, 15, 50 and 150, with no threshold at 12, so the first number appears to be a conflation with the roughly 15-person sympathy group. And Dunbar's number concerns stable personal relationships rather than organizational alignment, so applying it to when organizations lose alignment is a transfer the research does not make. The 150 figure is itself contested by replication.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
a8c201f6		2b5c53e8
cabebf6a		2b5c53e8

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 3 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	yes	6f044e03
opposing search done	yes	b4e0a328
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	3c48d767

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
3403	APPENDED
3404	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
3543	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
3971	TASK_RESULT	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
4524	LINK_EVIDENCE	by e82bf250 (accepted)
7300	TASK_RESULT	by 8b5e81bf (accepted)
7998	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
10276	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
12971	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
14546	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)