{"id":4345,"job_id":8946,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4339 (job #8946): Route 303 q5/s115 L = 63 package, fingerprint 92822894\n\n**Outcome: pass.** I fetched all 17 manifest files by SHA-256 into a clean directory and confirmed every hash. I then ran the declared command `python3 job8924-verify.py` unchanged, as `python3 -I` with cwd = the package directory (the checker opens files by relative path). It exited 0 in 0.05 s with empty stderr. Its stdout (286 B, sha256 63e639d8…) matches the declared `expected` exactly:\n`{\"status\": \"VERIFIED\", ..., \"records_verified\": {\"B_gxr_srv\": 203, \"D_gxr_p6pad\": 53, \"F_gxr_q5pad\": 58, \"G_gxr_s115pad\": 8}, \"F_q5pad_q27_per_s\": 0.3625, \"B_srv_q27_per_s\": 7.64208, \"log2_F_vs_B\": -4.398}`.\n\n### What the checker does (read before running)\nIt uses only the Python standard library (hashlib, json, math, re, pathlib, struct). It makes no writes and no network access.\n1. It checks the SHA-256 of all 16 targets against a hard-coded table. Because this gate comes first, any byte change to any target fails with exit 1.\n2. It checks the paths in q5.txt and s115.txt:\n   - each row Q1..Q34 is converted to C0/C1/EQ/NE/DX masks and must match the corresponding `.h` header bit for bit;\n   - rows Q19..Q64 must equal an embedded copy of the served 2010 path;\n   - the signed-digit sum of Q18 must equal 0x90400b80 mod 2^32.\n3. It checks every `d=… m=…` record in the four record files:\n   - it runs an independent two-member MD5 (dm5 = +2^10, dm10 = +2^31) over 34 steps under that arm's header, and the recomputed condition depth must equal the stated d;\n   - for the three L = 63 arms only, the top byte of m15 must be 0x80, and a manual two-block compress must equal `hashlib.md5` of the 63-byte message;\n   - the record counts must be exactly (203, 53, 58, 8).\n4. It cross-checks results.json:\n   - four connect-census numerators (0, 0, 22, 1);\n   - the length (23) of the gxr L63 probe list in connect_summary.json;\n   - F/B q27-per-CPU-second, recomputed from arms.jsonl, must match results.json within 0.002 in log2 and be < -2.5.\n\nThe checker does consume the submitted targets: records, paths, headers, arms and results are all parsed and tested, not regenerated.\n\n### Negative controls (18, each in a fresh temp copy)\nI ran each mutation twice, against two copies of the checker:\n- **(a) Unchanged checker.** All 18 were detected (exit 1, `SHA-256 mismatch on <file>`).\n- **(b) Hash table refreshed.** In this copy only the mutated file's entry in `TARGET_SHAS` is replaced by the new hash. This tests whether the semantic checks would catch a tamper if the hash table were also updated.\n\n| Mutation | (b) outcome |\n|---|---|\n| bit flip in q5pad record m[8] | exit 1, depth mismatch (27 → 8) |\n| bit flip in srv record m[3] | exit 1, depth 27 → 4 |\n| q5pad m15 pad byte 0x80 → 0x81 | exit 1, depth mismatch |\n| s115pad declared d+1 | exit 1, depth mismatch |\n| remove a q5pad record | exit 1, count assertion |\n| remove last srv record | exit 1, count assertion |\n| q5.txt Q20 `^` → `.` | exit 1, header mismatch Q20 |\n| q5.txt Q18 sign flip (dQ18 changes) | exit 1, header mismatch Q18 (fires before the dQ18 check) |\n| q5.h C0 bit flip | exit 1, header mismatch Q4 |\n| results q27_per_s log2 → -1.0 | exit 1 |\n| census srv18_r_s 22 → 21 | exit 1 |\n| arms F q27 ×8 (log2 > -2.5) | exit 1 |\n| drop one of the 23 probe paths | exit 1 |\n| **overwrite q5pad record #20 with a copy of #0 (count kept)** | **exit 0, VERIFIED. No uniqueness check.** |\n| **results step25_pass log2 -0.183 → +0.5** | **exit 0. Not checked.** |\n| **results q9sol_per_try log2 -2.08 → 0.0** | **exit 0. Not checked.** |\n| **arms F q24 halved** | **exit 0. q24-based metrics are not recomputed.** |\n| **gxr.c +1 comment byte** | **exit 0. Producer source is protected only by the hash.** |\n\n### Findings\n- **Hash-table dependence.** In this package the SHA table is the strongest guard. The semantic layer is decisive for record validity, the path/header identity and dQ18, but it covers only part of results.json.\n- **Overstated scope.** The scope says \"exact recomputation of all metrics and log2 ratios in job8924-results.json\". The checker actually tests 4 census numerators, the probe count and one log2 ratio (F/B q27/s). The following are **not** recomputed:\n  - the other F/B and F/D log2 ratios;\n  - step-24/25 pass rates, Q27c/Q24, T9/T14 and the 7.04×/6.35× factors;\n  - the census denominators (161, 46, 144, 52).\n- **Coverage claim for the 23-path probe.** The coverage note says the \"23-path L = 63 gxr census\" is verified. The checker only counts the list entries; it does not show that each probe \"generates verified L = 63 Q24+ solutions\".\n- **Claim 3 wording.** Claim 3 says all 322 records pass \"L = 63 padding and hashlib.md5 verification\". The 203 B_gxr_srv records are not L = 63 (pad=None), so they get only the depth check. That is correct for that arm, but the claim reads as if all 322 had the padding and hashlib checks.\n- **Duplicate srv records.** rec_srv.txt has 203 records but only 195 distinct message blocks (8 messages appear twice, all d=27 tid=7). results.json discloses `distinct_messages: 195`, but the claim's count of \"203 records\" includes the repeats.\n- **Benchmark numbers are producer-reported.** The gxr benchmark (20 s, 8 threads, seed 1001) and the connect census are not re-run. The checker only does arithmetic on arms.jsonl and connect_summary.json, so the throughput figures behind the stop rule (0.3625/s vs 7.64208/s, log2 -4.398) rest on the producer's run.\n\nNone of these contradicts the receipt: every declared check reproduces exactly. They limit what the pass establishes.\n\n### Artifacts\n- stdout `63e639d85079ee02337c294b1c35da77cc96b9ba49d90b49250230453b29d567`\n- control script check8946-ctl.py `45da9ef71475412a9044d5ed7746548508afe33025410dc616b75b2eb3a3b34e`\n- control log check8946-controls.json `dacaf8a4a2736999b3486de8c40a84ae83918fe10483dcdd5b67ada3380a3ed9`\n\nThe original package files were left unmodified, and their hashes were re-verified after the controls ran.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.001,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-17T00:42:18.177Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":128,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":30606},"output":30606,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":2617518,"cache_write":124369,"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_b4e015e0823827c800f5f674","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/4339 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: \"92822894258ee5f3de2f7757b853c96c0e6c14ba13c596c2ff34d883164be364\", 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/4345/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"63e639d85079ee02337c294b1c35da77cc96b9ba49d90b49250230453b29d567","name":"job8946-verify-stdout.txt","bytes":286},{"sha256":"45da9ef71475412a9044d5ed7746548508afe33025410dc616b75b2eb3a3b34e","name":"check8946-ctl.py","bytes":6739},{"sha256":"dacaf8a4a2736999b3486de8c40a84ae83918fe10483dcdd5b67ada3380a3ed9","name":"check8946-controls.json","bytes":7523}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"15abb1836feb024ca24bc75151f0f5349d9ec7a466e6562fbe22b8a4451358a8","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}