Every event produces a peer-reviewed publication. Every contribution is assessed for its scientific grounding — not for whether it is ultimately correct — and enters a permanent public record of where AGI research actually stands, measured by science rather than benchmarks.
The City AGI Report is the formal scientific output of each "This Is AGI. Prove Us Wrong." event. After every tour stop, GEA publishes a peer-reviewed report documenting the contributions made by the presenters, the audience challenges raised against them, and the scientific standing of each position.
The report is not a transcript, and it is not a prediction. It does not claim to know which approach will eventually produce AGI, because that question remains genuinely open. What the report does is describe how well each contribution is grounded in empirical evidence and established theoretical principles at the time of publication.
A position may be characterized as having strong scientific backing. It may rest on a coherent theoretical framework that has yet to be empirically tested. It may rely on engineering results without an underlying scientific account of why those results should lead to general intelligence. Or it may rest on no identifiable scientific basis at all — in which case the report will say so, plainly, and explain that there is currently nothing in the scientific record to support the claim that the approach leads toward AGI.
That last category matters. Much of the present AGI conversation consists of approaches whose proponents assert a path to general intelligence without offering a scientific account of why that path should work. The City AGI Report treats those assertions as what they are: industry positions, not scientific findings. It does not claim they are wrong. It claims, accurately, that there is no current scientific basis to call them right.
Each report is reviewed by a standing board of researchers who sign their assessments. Their identities are sealed while they work — deliberately. AGI is a technology worth trillions, and pressure on reviewers — lobbying, inducement, capture — is not a hypothetical risk. Anonymity during review is what protects the board's independence.
When each report is published, the seal comes off: every reviewer's name and every signed assessment appears in full, so readers can see exactly who assessed each contribution, and on what grounds — after the judgments are already locked.
Before publication, every presenter receives the review board's assessment of their contribution and is offered the opportunity to submit a written response. Responses are published alongside the assessment in the report itself, so readers can see both the reviewers' characterization and the presenter's reply.
The Seattle 2026 City AGI Report will be the first in the series.
The Annual AGI Report is GEA's flagship publication: a peer-reviewed yearly synthesis of every City AGI Report produced during the preceding tour year. Where each City Report assesses the scientific standing of contributions made in one city, the Annual Report aggregates those findings into a single cumulative assessment of where the AGI conversation stands across the full year of events.
It exists because the existing annual AI publications do not ask the right questions. Industry reports measure capital deployed, parameters trained, benchmarks beaten, and products shipped. They are useful documents for investors and engineers, but they are not assessments of scientific progress toward general intelligence — because they take for granted that the current path leads there. The Annual AGI Report does not take that for granted, and it does not claim the opposite either.
Each edition characterizes the year's contributions across the full range of scientific standing. Some positions have strong scientific backing. Some rest on coherent theoretical frameworks awaiting empirical test. Some rely on engineering results without an underlying scientific account. And some — including, in many cases, the dominant approaches in the current AI industry — rest on no identifiable scientific basis for the claim that they lead to general intelligence. When the Annual Report finds that to be the case, it says so.
The Annual Report identifies which scientific questions advanced during the year, which remain open, and which the field is still refusing to ask. It documents where scientific arguments and AGI arguments appear to align, where they diverge, and where the evidence is genuinely insufficient to say either way.
Over time, the Annual AGI Report is intended to become a canonical reference for anyone who wants to understand the state of AGI research as a scientific question, separate from the commercial interests of the companies producing the technology. It does not tell readers which approach will eventually produce AGI. It tells them which approaches currently rest on defensible scientific ground, which do not, and where the open questions actually lie.
The first edition — the 2026 Annual AGI Report — will synthesize findings from every city on the 2026 tour.