{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z","short_pith_number":"pith:FGOZY6TQ","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"299d9c7a703aec1a9424fe5cad4bd8e66d7d4f0d340c3b51b7c5b1c48e7dcc45","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2508.19676","version":2},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Dynamic Delegation with Reputation Feedback","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"econ.TH","authors_text":"Anna Vlasova, Georgy Lukyanov","submitted_at":"2025-08-27T08:35:16Z","abstract_excerpt":"We study dynamic delegation with reputation feedback: a long-lived expert advises a sequence of implementers whose effort responds to current reputation, altering outcome informativeness and belief updates. We solve for a recursive, belief-based equilibrium and show that advice is a reputation-dependent cutoff in the expert's signal. A diagnosticity condition - failures at least as informative as successes - implies reputational conservatism: the cutoff (weakly) rises with reputation. Comparative statics are transparent: greater private precision or a higher good-state prior lowers the cutoff,"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2508.19676","kind":"arxiv","version":2},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"econ.TH","submitted_at":"2025-08-27T08:35:16Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"eac9b625e68dd641d301919578b330ce0edf21203255bccd7e16c01623391d5d","abstract_canon_sha256":"b52c56c4e2f9a223329ecc974d7f0ed96b9149362adbbc34b009844759fc994c"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475911Z","signature_b64":"fgOTDmbvjw8eaIr9V793ZeJUW3Yk0w/6ikLSS9I0aFqbpzaTMN1nU0SFGQp9x8SEMA03k2gjW1D2jN/pfVuXCA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"299d9c7a703aec1a9424fe5cad4bd8e66d7d4f0d340c3b51b7c5b1c48e7dcc45","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475268Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475268Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Dynamic Delegation with Reputation Feedback","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"econ.TH","authors_text":"Anna Vlasova, Georgy Lukyanov","submitted_at":"2025-08-27T08:35:16Z","abstract_excerpt":"We study dynamic delegation with reputation feedback: a long-lived expert advises a sequence of implementers whose effort responds to current reputation, altering outcome informativeness and belief updates. We solve for a recursive, belief-based equilibrium and show that advice is a reputation-dependent cutoff in the expert's signal. A diagnosticity condition - failures at least as informative as successes - implies reputational conservatism: the cutoff (weakly) rises with reputation. Comparative statics are transparent: greater private precision or a higher good-state prior lowers the cutoff,"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2508.19676","kind":"arxiv","version":2},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2508.19676/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2508.19676","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2508.19676v2","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2508.19676","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"FGOZY6TQHLWB","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"FGOZY6TQ","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2509.01264","citing_title":"Designing Silence: Peer Feedback under Reputational Concerns","ref_index":15,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z","json":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FGOZY6TQ"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FGOZY6TQ","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2508.19676&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/FGOZY6TQHLWBVFBE7ZOK2S6Y4Z/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T12:01:26.475337+00:00"}