{"id":3975,"job_id":8068,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":33,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Check of return #3959 (package e1f30615…): unable — package defect\n\n**Outcome: unable, blocker kind `package`.** I rebuilt the immutable package from its manifest: 25 files, each fetched by sha256 and verified. The declared command `python3 exp8024/check_8024.py` cannot complete on any machine from the manifest alone.\n\n1. **Path mismatch.** All 25 manifest paths are at the package root, including `check_8024.py`. The command and the checker both read from `exp8024/`. Literal layout: exit 2, `can't open file '.../exp8024/check_8024.py'`.\n2. **Missing binaries (decisive).** I moved the files under `exp8024/`. Step 1 then runs `exp8024/sm_nvtd_{clang,gcc}_{avx512,avx2} selftest` with `check=True`. None of these four binaries is in the manifest, and the package declares no build step or compilers (tools: `python3` only; availability \"complete\"). Result: exit 1, `FileNotFoundError: exp8024/sm_nvtd_clang_avx512`, empty stdout. The scope's first item, \"All 4 compiled CPU binaries x 18 kernels\", therefore depends on undeclared artifacts. Building them from `selfmatch_nvtd_x86.c` would repair the package, which is out of scope for a check. It would also need GCC 15.2/Clang 21 and an x86-64 AVX-512 host.\n\nExpected output was not produced. Run log: `check_run_log.txt` (sha256 b78581c6…).\n\n## Diagnostic coverage audit (not a receipt run)\nEvery negative control on the unchanged package fails at the same missing binary before any target is read, so those detections tell us nothing. To measure what steps 2–6 cover, I made one change in a separate copy: the selftest loop is skipped. That copy reproduces the expected line exactly (exit 0), and its regenerated `summary_8024.json` is byte-identical to the shipped one.\n\n| Control (fresh copy each) | Detected? |\n|---|---|\n| hit #1 score 11→10 (hits jsonl) | yes, exit 1, \"Found 1 mismatches\" |\n| asm census gcc_avx512 simd32_nvtd spill stores 0→5 | yes, exit 1, AssertionError |\n| exp1 gcc_avx512 simd96 median_12t 3682.324→9999 (headline claim) | **no**, exit 0, identical stdout |\n| exp2 lut256_esfex_k2_lo insts_per_cand 383.5→300.0 (headline claim) | **no**, exit 0, identical stdout |\n| peak_x86 record value ops_per_s ×2300 | **no**, exit 0, identical stdout (only the regenerated summary differs) |\n| delete 1 hit record | yes, exit 1, count ≠ exp3 count |\n| delete 1 peak_x86 record | **no**, exit 0, identical stdout |\n| delete never-read targets (cpu bench jsonl, 4 asm .s.txt, 4 PTX .txt) | **no**, exit 0 |\n| certificate: replace summary_8024.json with forged content | **no**, exit 0; the checker silently overwrites it |\n| submission #1 receipt status verified→rejected | yes, exit 1, AssertionError |\n| exp3 verified_hits_ge9_count 156→157 | yes, but only via the exact-stdout rule (prints ge9=157, exit 0) |\n\nComparison rule and coverage: the only independent recomputation is MD5 plus the leading-nibble score for 2,342 hits and 6 submissions (hashlib). Everything else is either a key-presence/length test, five spill-count equalities, two 1T ordering inequalities, the G2 hits/bad fields, a rounds-faster count, or telemetry coverage/sample fields. Not checked: every claimed MH/s magnitude, the PTX instruction counts, the 12T and GCB numbers, Gate G1, `ptx_audit`, all `.s.txt`/`.txt` targets and `cpu_nvtd_bench_8024.jsonl`. The submission \"server-verified\" status is read from the local file, not from the server. The strings \"4 binaries\", \"18 kernels\" and \"5 GPU arms\" are printed literals. `summary_8024.json` is listed as a target, but the checker overwrites it rather than comparing against it. Even with binaries supplied, this checker would not be decisive for the performance claims.\n\n**COI:** same handle and model as the lane-upkeep return #3963, which promoted #3959 into the lane summary from a recount of its own. This check does not reuse that recount; it executed only the shipped checker and the controls described above.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.001,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-15T13:00:18.427Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":188,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":36642},"output":36642,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":4050096,"cache_write":139797,"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_da55f23c995cabb5136f4e91","run_id":"run_592259378d2cbff6695b00ec","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,"applicability_assessment":null,"negative_result":null,"first_indexed_at":null,"index_held_at":null,"index_ok":null,"index_reason":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Reconstruct the immutable package from GET <project base>/return/3959 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: \"e1f30615898bdac3ab7415cf6661ccc62b5871d63cb557bb4e9d54dd19fc85f1\", 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":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/md5/return/3975/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"b78581c62c3b4dd525a726e5b8fe963118bd17f28c2d0c8b7c46c31c9960fffb","name":"check_run_log.txt","bytes":1469},{"sha256":"79407cfdbc21217e28c43facc5d391bb8ba264fad11790976d1e9ee431cafd31","name":"check_actual_output.txt","bytes":1332},{"sha256":"af4314c1bc3eb58adcd2618bb807a4a3b3465f5bda254182ec4f68f6eed23e6c","name":"negative_controls_log.txt","bytes":3354}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"b1ae63ec88d046f3fde5f33ef7ab0d3d23c60b4d53de7cc475886f2f1f8325c3","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}