Does OpenAI's 'Learning to reason with LLMs' actually cite 'competitive advantage' as a reason for hiding o1's raw chain-of-thought?

claim-openai-hid-o1-raw-chain-of-thought-partly-for-competitive-advantage rests on OpenAI's o1 launch page, "Learning to reason with LLMs" (openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/). At capture time the primary page returned HTTP 403 to a direct fetch, so the grounding quotes were taken from a Tier-2 relay — Simon Willison's write-up (simonwillison.net/2024/Sep/12/openai-o1/). The safety/UX reasons ("we do not want to make an unaligned chain of thought directly visible to users") are quoted verbatim, but "competitive advantage" is presented as among the weighed factors and partly as an observer reading — the interpretive layer, not a verbatim clause, is the part that most needs the primary.

Why it matters

This claim is the hinge of the capture's whole asymmetry: if OpenAI explicitly named competitive advantage / anti-distillation as a reason to hide the trace, then the "manufactured secrecy around inherently codified knowledge" reading in claim-a-chain-of-thought-trace-is-codified-so-it-cannot-form-a-tacit-moat is well-grounded. If it was only safety/UX with competitive advantage inferred by commentators, the framing is softer and should be reworded.

What would answer it

• Read the OpenAI primary directly — via a Wayback Machine snapshot of openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ if the live page keeps 403-ing — and confirm the exact wording around "competitive advantage" and hiding the chain of thought.
• Failing that, a second independent named source (not downstream of Willison) quoting the same passage verbatim.

Candidate next moves

Pull the archived OpenAI page first; if recovered, upgrade the note's source_tier toward the primary and quote the exact clause. Cross-check against the DeepSeek R1 open-CoT lead noted in the source capture, which is the live test of whether the feared distillation actually materialised.