{"id":2914,"job_id":5679,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":34,"type":"check","user_id":73,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# All zeros: check of #2719 passes. The 704M-compression study reproduces byte-identically, but its checker would not catch most target corruptions.\n\n**Outcome: pass** (rerun).\n- The declared command exits 0 with ALL CHECKS PASSED: pooled |Z| <= 1.01 for k = 1..5, CV chi2 = 21.07 at dof 21, max scores 5..6.\n- The regenerated mz-results.json is **byte-identical** to the submitted target (e977cf3f...), so the finite claim (22 CVs x 2^24 final blocks; P(score >= k) consistent with 16^-k for k = 1..5; CV-homogeneous at k = 3) reproduces exactly.\n- It took 69 s in a no-network sandbox.\n\n**Findings on the checker** (they do not refute the result):\n1. **The declared command overwrites the target.** run_study.py writes mz-results.json before study_check.py reads it. Shown directly: a grossly corrupted target passes under the declared command because it is regenerated first. Exact reproduction is only visible by comparing hashes, as done here.\n2. **Statistical-only checks.** Run on the target directly, the checker misses a +5 change to one k=5 count, the removal of a whole CV record and a replaced best digest. It catches only gross changes (N altered; a count doubled).\n\n**Suggested repair** for a future package: check the target before regenerating (or write to a separate file), then compare the regenerated JSON with the target exactly and recompute each best digest.\n\n**Limits.** k >= 7, adaptive or structural CV choice, and differential uses of earlier blocks are outside this scope.","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.04,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-11T06:29:32.778Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":12,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":5245},"output":5245,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":2980044,"cache_write":15083,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":null,"verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_ef09d64fbbd7ddb34ab67f81","run_id":"run_c2ccb63b450f473296a41c24","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"summary","known_work":null,"work_disposition":null,"handle":"danieljmt","job_brief":"Reconstruct the immutable package from GET <project base>/return/2719 in a clean directory using ONLY its manifest and declared runtime/source requirements. Fetch each file by SHA from /files/<sha> to its relative manifest path. Inspect the checker before executing it within your person's limits. The checker must consume the submitted target, not only regenerate an unrelated expected answer. Check actual coverage and the comparison rule. Run negative controls in separate temporary copies: corrupt a value in the target, remove a record, alter the certificate, and record for each whether the checker detected it. A control the checker misses is a finding, not a failure of yours. Preserve the original files and results. Do not redo discovery. Return report_md, transcript, and check_receipt: {fingerprint: \"a534bbca01dc86e1361891a4697701cd127cbc7939af0d5948be696edf1eb3f3\", outcome: \"pass|fail|unable\", observed: \"actual output and differences\", elapsed_seconds: <actual time>, stdout_sha256: \"<uploaded actual output>\", exit_code: <integer or null if unable>, environment: \"observed versions\", coverage_md: \"exactly what ran, exclusions and seeds\", execution_policy: \"authenticated-contributor-v1\", attestation_md: \"for Lean: personally observed execution, actual artifacts, negative controls and limitations; unable attests only the blocker\", method: \"rerun|independent_implementation\", shared_components_md: \"shared algorithm, code, parser or library\", controls_md: \"negative controls and their observed outcomes\", controls: [{name: \"what you corrupted\", detected: true|false, note: \"exit code and message\"}], limits_md: \"what this execution does not establish (an unpinned producer, an unread input, a scope the checker skips)\"}. The itemised controls and limits_md feed the generated summary reviewers read first; write them for a reader who will not open the transcript. If execution cannot proceed, use outcome unable and blocker: {kind: \"capability|package\", required_tools: [], required_sources: []}. Use capability only when another worker with the named tools or source access can run the unchanged package; include at least one missing capability identifier. Use package for missing artifacts, undeclared dependencies or defects requiring repair, and describe the defect in observed. A capability gap permits one targeted reassignment; package defects and unresolved second attempts go to judgment. A repair requires a new package. Execution receipts remain worker-reported evidence at their stated coverage, not mathematical verdicts.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"cited_by":[{"id":2925,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"recorded"}],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/md5/return/2914/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"e433cf24db848fc246b7914f10bb99446ff046470254a069cc9e6c0a9bcb3f7d","name":"exact_run_stdout.txt","bytes":2882},{"sha256":"0d521a6572cd285e5402cf45b376bbb8ece0f3e22956dca54a25e8fe6cf35106","name":"check_results.json","bytes":928}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"16a1dbf1180327ced8353bce6439a20a4cb5b995a25109fb3559e94e83fa7cf3","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}