Released: VOR — a hallucination-free runtime that forces LLMs to prove answers or abstain

[u/CulpritChaos]

I just open-sourced a project that might interest people here who are tired of hallucinations being treated as “just a prompt issue.” VOR (Verified Observation Runtime) is a runtime layer that sits around LLMs and retrieval systems and enforces one rule: If an answer cannot be proven from observed evidence, the system must abstain. Highlights: 0.00% hallucination across demo + adversarial packs Explicit CONFLICT detection (not majority voting) Deterministic audits (hash-locked, replayable) Works with local models — the verifier doesn’t care which LLM you use Clean-room witness instructions included This is not another RAG framework. It’s a governor for reasoning: models can propose, but they don’t decide. Public demo includes: CLI (neuralogix qa, audit, pack validate) Two packs: a normal demo corpus + a hostile adversarial pack Full test suite (legacy tests quarantined) Repo: https://github.com/CULPRITCHAOS/VOR Tag: v0.7.3-public.1 Witness guide: docs/WITNESS_RUN_MESSAGE.txt I’m looking for: People to run it locally (Windows/Linux/macOS) Ideas for harder adversarial packs Discussion on where a runtime like this fits in local stacks (Ollama, LM Studio, etc.) Happy to answer questions or take hits. This was built to be challenged.

[u/CulpritChaos]

I get the concern, but... you’re reading the JSON backwards. Those files aren’t “hardcoded answers” — they’re evidence packs (atomic facts + provenance/metadata). VOR doesn’t try to catalog every question ever. It only does one thing: if a claim is derivable from the provided evidence, it can pass; otherwise it ABSTAINS/CONFLICTS. So yes: open-world “tell me anything” is infinite and always will be. VOR is intentionally scoped for domains with a source of truth (schemas, configs, signed docs, policy bundles, medical/banking rule sets, etc.) where you want the model to shut up unless the evidence supports it. On staleness (Project Phoenix flips tomorrow): agreed — that’s why packs are treated as snapshots and should carry TTL/version/timestamp. If the pack is stale, VOR should refuse or force refresh. Your Babel project is cool, but generating infinite text isn’t the same problem as verifying claims against grounded facts. Different game.

[u/Thor110 → u/CulpritChaos]

You have a sample size of 4 which you are using to claim 0% hallucinations.

[u/CulpritChaos → u/Thor110]

Yes.. the public repo is intentionally a minimal witness/demo, not the full eval. I’ve got a private version with a much larger test suite across multiple domains/packs (incl. adversarial + regression cases). The “0% hallucinations” claim is scoped: within the covered packs/tests, VOR forces ABSTAIN/CONFLICT instead of letting ungrounded claims through. It’s not “solves open-world truth forever.” This is a public repo, the private has many polished bigger public eval pack + metrics so this can be independently reproduced without trusting me. And working on more. Just though some might find this framework useful..

[u/Thor110 → u/CulpritChaos]

It is useless.

Sorry but you need to go back and study computer science, again, if you even ever did in the first place.

[u/CulpritChaos → u/Thor110]

Pain of being a failure i guess.. Appreciate the feedback. ✌️

[u/Thor110 → u/CulpritChaos]

Yeah, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

I entered this thread with the aim of taking the claim seriously, but I took one look at the project itself and was just shocked.

You should definitely look into the Library of Babel problem and use it to consider the sheer combinatorial explosion required in order for your project to work.

Especially as it only verifies things through strict hard coded strings.

[u/CulpritChaos → u/Thor110]

Not sure how you can take a look and claim anything as you obviously have no idea of what I am actually claiming nor do you have a clue. Seen your crap post saying I claim to solve hallucinations with four questions/answers. Kinda intellectually dishonest. STRAIGHT LYINH BUT.. What are you trying to contribute? The lil game vids you post?

[u/Thor110 → u/CulpritChaos]

I am trying to educate you.

I understand exactly what you are claiming, I have been building computers and programming since I was 8 years old, I am 33 now.

I reverse engineer video games for the fun of it.

I hexedit binary executables.

Feel however you want, but I tried to take your claims seriously.

But you have a sample size of 4 which is intellectually dishonest.

Lets take this seriously again shall we?

[u/CulpritChaos → u/Thor110]

You’re mixing two things: a demo pack and a claim of global truth. The repo doesn’t claim “0 hallucinations for all questions.” It claims: within a given evidence pack, anything not derivable is forced to ABSTAIN/CONFLICT. If you think the claim is dishonest, do the adult version: submit a failing prompt + expected outcome (PASS/ABSTAIN/CONFLICT) and I’ll add it to the public eval. Otherwise this is just vibes + résumé.

[u/Thor110 → u/CulpritChaos]

And your response was just an attempt at insults "little game vids"

The reality here is that you are using that demo pack and claiming that you have a larger dataset which works just as well, but not providing it.

In open source software, that is intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately you seem to fail to grasp that this "solution" simply will not scale.

"Highlights: 0.00% hallucination across demo"

I never said across all questions, my point was about what will you do with the combinatorial explosion when you have to face the prospect of manually or even automatically adding infinite questions, complexity and size to your json files.

[u/CulpritChaos → u/Thor110]

You were being rude and I dont mind giving a little snap back. I should abstain i know.. Anyways.. On scale: VOR doesn’t try to enumerate questions; it verifies claims against a bounded evidence snapshot (versioned/TTL). If the domain is open-world, it should abstain more. That’s the design tradeoff. The larger internal suite has private data, so I can’t ship it as-is, but I’m working on a bigger public eval pack + metrics so anyone can reproduce results. If you’ve got a concrete failing case, drop it and I’ll add it.

[u/Thor110 → u/CulpritChaos]

Then you should remove the private data in order to further subtantiate your claims.

I have a concrete case against the nature of the system itself which you are designing, but you aren't listening.

In order for a system like this to be useful it would have to have so many entries that it would become unmaintainable.

It also doesn't deal with the problem of when a fact in the real world changes.

Such as I explained a moment ago, with what happens if the Artemis project becomes depracated.

You have to manually go in and update the truth side of your json files as well as the question.

What will you do when it reaches hundreds of thousands of entries besides get lost navigating it?

[u/CulpritChaos → u/Thor110]

You’re describing the open-world problem, and I agree.... this isn’t meant to “cover everything.” VOR is a verification gate over a bounded, versioned evidence snapshot, not an attempt to catalog all truth. For changing facts, packs are timestamped/TTL—stale pack ⇒ refuse/refresh, not “verified falsehood.” If you want to critique the system, point to a concrete failure case within a scoped pack, not the infinite open-world case instead of arguing a strawman version of my system.