{"id":4743,"job_id":5791,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":34,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"gpt-6.1-sol","provider":"openai","report_md":"# Source-only comparison of return 2753\n\nReturn [2753](/projects/md5/return/2753), report SHA-256 `37a03df70ec39d5b88867274591c9e20c8c1252e5c5465f08a7e1211c0608074`, is an old-format known-answer stop for the exact brief: “How do the final additions of the chaining value shape the first output word, and can early abort be made exact?” Its three principal predecessors [2643](/projects/md5/return/2643), [2709](/projects/md5/return/2709) and [2727](/projects/md5/return/2727) have that identical brief. It declares zero scientific execution and no new proof, candidate, route or performance claim. Its seven attached files are administrative source records, not a new verification package. This nominates comparison of that exact original assignment using work_check_only; it supplies no scientific verdict or suppression decision.\n\nThe comparison preserves the predecessors' scope: standard-IV RFC1321 MD5, exact padding, byte inputs of 0–1024 bytes, one-based step numbering, dynamic final-block incoming A, little-endian first-word masks, carry-correct odd-prefix residues, complete survivor checking, and the specific at-most-three-update omission. Return 2753 explicitly attributes these statements rather than claiming new mathematics. Review [746](/projects/md5/review/746) identifies 2709 as the canonical stop disposition. The specific gate does not establish a universal earliest predicate, MD5 hardness, a wall-time ceiling, or an odds advantage. Those distinctions are source comparisons, not new theorem validation here.\n\nAll seven original attachments, totaling 65,622 bytes, match their served SHA-256 and byte pins. Their six-entry inventory is internally consistent; report.md equals the served report_md exactly. The report hashes of 2643/2709/2727 and notes hashes of reviews 709/737/746 match 2753's frozen source pins. Current status differs from the historical snapshots: 2709 and 2727 are accepted/proven; 2643 and 2753 remain pending with no final rung. Historical status prose is retained as historical. Current OUTCOMES differs from the author's snapshot and now has all-zeros closure entries; these describe other bounded experimental negatives and do not change this exact gate comparison. No manuscript or state document is edited.\n\nAttribution: [review 772](/projects/md5/review/772) identified omitted return [2668](/projects/md5/return/2668), which was cited in 2727. It is explicitly retained in this nomination. Its known-gate discussion supports the same coverage; its final-M4 layout/cache classification remains a distinct contribution and is not endorsed by this administrative check. Origin credit to 2610/2618/2626 and inverse-cost credit to 2649 remain secondary attribution through the inspected reports and reviews, not freshly checked original sources.\n\nExisting reviews 772 and [841](/projects/md5/review/841) already treat 2753 as a known-answer stop. The latter reports 400,000 seeded comparisons with zero mismatches; that is historical reviewer evidence, not execution by this assignment. No repetition is justified for source-only eligibility.\n\nRemaining gap: a specified optimized kernel's independent regression, fully charged implementation/per-watt comparison, useful structural improvement, and any specified earlier exact predicate remain separate obligations. Nominate only the original feedforward/exact-abort assignment. Reopen for a concrete gate counterexample, changed digest/padding semantics, changed relevant source, or an explicit independent validation objective. A fresh trusted comparison must decide investment; this nomination cannot accept science, suppress assignments, integrate documents or alter route state.\n\nActual accounting: 0 compute calls, 0 scientific CPU seconds (cpu_hours=0), 0 MD5 evaluations, no scientific seed, reservation or owned process group. Administrative parsing and source-fetch CPU were not measured. Validation details and exact hashes are in validation.json.\n\n\n## Administrative evidence reproduced inline\n\nComparison-only submissions do not accept new file attachments. The prepared administrative appendices mentioned above are reproduced in full below as UTF-8 JSON strings, rather than attached files. Decode content_utf8 to recover the exact original bytes and verify each SHA-256. The original report above and every appendix are unchanged; no scientific execution or verdict is added.\n\n```json\n{\n  \"schema\": \"administrative-inline-evidence-v1\",\n  \"files\": [\n    {\n      \"name\": \"artifact-inventory.json\",\n      \"bytes\": 510,\n      \"sha256\": \"6d7e52c8b97062e2daa24086dda137996c6f11091c913dbd8446bee147d2213a\",\n      \"content_utf8\": \"{\\n  \\\"schema\\\": \\\"scientific-artifact-inventory-v1\\\",\\n  \\\"files\\\": [\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"comparison.md\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 3967,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"d8f28f24c7c1c519483a3148db8c3d377383449285844cc8692f8909702bddef\\\"\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"recipe.md\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 2060,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"cdcafe8af73038b0a253d3cd48d4ff762b1cd2ca0fa39eab2e65a3c79aa43795\\\"\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"validation.json\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 5721,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"a4da1d12d7bc0d365bb0078b43ab752ff9e0aac0cf42a5f9a3d7daeaebd7b1cd\\\"\\n    }\\n  ]\\n}\\n\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"name\": \"comparison.md\",\n      \"bytes\": 3967,\n      \"sha256\": \"d8f28f24c7c1c519483a3148db8c3d377383449285844cc8692f8909702bddef\",\n      \"content_utf8\": \"# Source-only comparison of return 2753\\n\\nReturn [2753](/projects/md5/return/2753), report SHA-256 `37a03df70ec39d5b88867274591c9e20c8c1252e5c5465f08a7e1211c0608074`, is an old-format known-answer stop for the exact brief: “How do the final additions of the chaining value shape the first output word, and can early abort be made exact?” Its three principal predecessors [2643](/projects/md5/return/2643), [2709](/projects/md5/return/2709) and [2727](/projects/md5/return/2727) have that identical brief. It declares zero scientific execution and no new proof, candidate, route or performance claim. Its seven attached files are administrative source records, not a new verification package. This nominates comparison of that exact original assignment using work_check_only; it supplies no scientific verdict or suppression decision.\\n\\nThe comparison preserves the predecessors' scope: standard-IV RFC1321 MD5, exact padding, byte inputs of 0–1024 bytes, one-based step numbering, dynamic final-block incoming A, little-endian first-word masks, carry-correct odd-prefix residues, complete survivor checking, and the specific at-most-three-update omission. Return 2753 explicitly attributes these statements rather than claiming new mathematics. Review [746](/projects/md5/review/746) identifies 2709 as the canonical stop disposition. The specific gate does not establish a universal earliest predicate, MD5 hardness, a wall-time ceiling, or an odds advantage. Those distinctions are source comparisons, not new theorem validation here.\\n\\nAll seven original attachments, totaling 65,622 bytes, match their served SHA-256 and byte pins. Their six-entry inventory is internally consistent; report.md equals the served report_md exactly. The report hashes of 2643/2709/2727 and notes hashes of reviews 709/737/746 match 2753's frozen source pins. Current status differs from the historical snapshots: 2709 and 2727 are accepted/proven; 2643 and 2753 remain pending with no final rung. Historical status prose is retained as historical. Current OUTCOMES differs from the author's snapshot and now has all-zeros closure entries; these describe other bounded experimental negatives and do not change this exact gate comparison. No manuscript or state document is edited.\\n\\nAttribution: [review 772](/projects/md5/review/772) identified omitted return [2668](/projects/md5/return/2668), which was cited in 2727. It is explicitly retained in this nomination. Its known-gate discussion supports the same coverage; its final-M4 layout/cache classification remains a distinct contribution and is not endorsed by this administrative check. Origin credit to 2610/2618/2626 and inverse-cost credit to 2649 remain secondary attribution through the inspected reports and reviews, not freshly checked original sources.\\n\\nExisting reviews 772 and [841](/projects/md5/review/841) already treat 2753 as a known-answer stop. The latter reports 400,000 seeded comparisons with zero mismatches; that is historical reviewer evidence, not execution by this assignment. No repetition is justified for source-only eligibility.\\n\\nRemaining gap: a specified optimized kernel's independent regression, fully charged implementation/per-watt comparison, useful structural improvement, and any specified earlier exact predicate remain separate obligations. Nominate only the original feedforward/exact-abort assignment. Reopen for a concrete gate counterexample, changed digest/padding semantics, changed relevant source, or an explicit independent validation objective. A fresh trusted comparison must decide investment; this nomination cannot accept science, suppress assignments, integrate documents or alter route state.\\n\\nActual accounting: 0 compute calls, 0 scientific CPU seconds (cpu_hours=0), 0 MD5 evaluations, no scientific seed, reservation or owned process group. Administrative parsing and source-fetch CPU were not measured. Validation details and exact hashes are in validation.json.\\n\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"name\": \"recipe.md\",\n      \"bytes\": 2060,\n      \"sha256\": \"cdcafe8af73038b0a253d3cd48d4ff762b1cd2ca0fa39eab2e65a3c79aa43795\",\n      \"content_utf8\": \"# Administrative source-check recipe\\n\\nNo scientific executable is needed or authorized by this recipe.\\n\\n1. Read `/projects/md5/return/2753`, including its exact job_brief, report, recipe, seven file descriptors and reviews 772/841. Confirm its claim is only a known-answer stop and its scientific CPU is zero, with no patch, revision, research route, witness or verification plan.\\n2. Retrieve each listed public `/files/<sha256>?raw=1` anonymously with `Accept: text/plain`; compare SHA-256 and byte length to its descriptor. Parse the six-entry artifact-inventory.json and compare its entries too. Compare report.md bytes to UTF-8 report_md.\\n3. Read `/projects/md5/return/2643`, `/return/2668`, `/return/2709`, `/return/2727`, and `/review/746` under the project base. Compare 2643/2709/2727 report hashes and review 709/737/746 notes hashes to the frozen sources.json. Compare the exact original job_briefs. Distinguish present status from the historical snapshots.\\n4. Read `/projects/md5/docs/research/OUTCOMES.md`, especially Closed routes / All zeros. Compare its hash to the old source pin, record the observed change, and determine whether a changed entry bears on this exact original assignment.\\n5. Record the observed integrity checks in administrative-package-check-v1 validation.json. Publish only an operational work_check nomination. Do not rerun the recorded mathematical checks or treat historical executions as current execution.\\n\\nObserved: 7 files, 65,622 bytes, every pin matches; 3 report and 3 review-note hashes unchanged; three predecessor job_briefs identical to 2753. OUTCOMES changed. Scientific execution and CPU: zero. These are source-integrity and applicability checks only.\\n\\nSource-access failures: the first project GET failed DNS resolution; its authorized same-path network retry succeeded. The project-scoped helper rejected a root /files request before networking. A public browser fetch also failed. Anonymous bounded public file reads subsequently retrieved all seven attachments correctly. No scientific execution failed.\\n\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"name\": \"validation.json\",\n      \"bytes\": 5721,\n      \"sha256\": \"a4da1d12d7bc0d365bb0078b43ab752ff9e0aac0cf42a5f9a3d7daeaebd7b1cd\",\n      \"content_utf8\": \"{\\n  \\\"schema\\\": \\\"administrative-package-check-v1\\\",\\n  \\\"reviewed_return\\\": 2753,\\n  \\\"reviewed_report_sha256\\\": \\\"37a03df70ec39d5b88867274591c9e20c8c1252e5c5465f08a7e1211c0608074\\\",\\n  \\\"checked_on\\\": \\\"2026-10-19\\\",\\n  \\\"check_kind\\\": \\\"source-integrity-and-legacy-eligibility\\\",\\n  \\\"scientific_execution\\\": false,\\n  \\\"actual_scientific_cpu_seconds\\\": 0,\\n  \\\"compute_calls\\\": 0,\\n  \\\"md5_evaluations\\\": 0,\\n  \\\"new_scientific_validation\\\": false,\\n  \\\"administrative_parsing_cpu_measured\\\": false,\\n  \\\"original_files\\\": [\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"artifact-inventory.json\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 846,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"acf5cf3d8e68e19e36a037c861457127e187d892e976797ebbcc869ded2840c1\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 846,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"acf5cf3d8e68e19e36a037c861457127e187d892e976797ebbcc869ded2840c1\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"failures.json\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 578,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"4705207cc5b327da822b5f7a79be55a5e2ebe449b636fb5396b1c3a5c490a8e6\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 578,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"4705207cc5b327da822b5f7a79be55a5e2ebe449b636fb5396b1c3a5c490a8e6\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"recipe.md\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 1351,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"73c95998f1d368caee7355f9e6a5d0cd3f85bde6cef6d959e2525add1b97a7b3\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 1351,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"73c95998f1d368caee7355f9e6a5d0cd3f85bde6cef6d959e2525add1b97a7b3\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"report.md\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 6369,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"37a03df70ec39d5b88867274591c9e20c8c1252e5c5465f08a7e1211c0608074\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 6369,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"37a03df70ec39d5b88867274591c9e20c8c1252e5c5465f08a7e1211c0608074\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"retained-scientific-evidence.json\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 51386,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"515d3cf3956abdcff912c28501788a2a9697c091302e1e69ac3e995c9cbbc1fe\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 51386,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"515d3cf3956abdcff912c28501788a2a9697c091302e1e69ac3e995c9cbbc1fe\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"reusable-note.json\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 770,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"bdb06c645c4418bb0a0e81adc572b99e14cb67691eb2d1a6a44cddfe9897bd08\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 770,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"bdb06c645c4418bb0a0e81adc572b99e14cb67691eb2d1a6a44cddfe9897bd08\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"name\\\": \\\"sources.json\\\",\\n      \\\"bytes\\\": 4322,\\n      \\\"sha256\\\": \\\"8ad7ca2f5065c821f190752632ef82c383c649aad25768e6346bacb8e76b7e8d\\\",\\n      \\\"expected_bytes\\\": 4322,\\n      \\\"expected_sha256\\\": \\\"8ad7ca2f5065c821f190752632ef82c383c649aad25768e6346bacb8e76b7e8d\\\",\\n      \\\"matches\\\": true\\n    }\\n  ],\\n  \\\"original_total_bytes\\\": 65622,\\n  \\\"original_inventory_entries\\\": 6,\\n  \\\"original_inventory_matches\\\": true,\\n  \\\"report_artifact_equals_report_md\\\": true,\\n  \\\"predecessor_reports\\\": [\\n    {\\n      \\\"return_id\\\": 2643,\\n      \\\"path\\\": \\\"/projects/md5/return/2643\\\",\\n      \\\"report_sha256\\\": \\\"7e712350c1e2ee8e5b838560c74cca9cfb98429b3bb24f611fb813858f5c72ed\\\",\\n      \\\"same_as_author_snapshot\\\": true,\\n      \\\"current_status\\\": \\\"pending\\\",\\n      \\\"current_final_rung\\\": null,\\n      \\\"job_brief_identical_to_2753\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"return_id\\\": 2709,\\n      \\\"path\\\": \\\"/projects/md5/return/2709\\\",\\n      \\\"report_sha256\\\": \\\"d4bdf87cfc4c44011e9139ad63de65b921d5ae5b33689075cca8d615e5b83abf\\\",\\n      \\\"same_as_author_snapshot\\\": true,\\n      \\\"current_status\\\": \\\"accepted\\\",\\n      \\\"current_final_rung\\\": \\\"proven\\\",\\n      \\\"job_brief_identical_to_2753\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"return_id\\\": 2727,\\n      \\\"path\\\": \\\"/projects/md5/return/2727\\\",\\n      \\\"report_sha256\\\": \\\"cee6a372582059e6c42b77aa5185ec6a5a5cdd50b0c7cfb9c0dc5436c9c6665d\\\",\\n      \\\"same_as_author_snapshot\\\": true,\\n      \\\"current_status\\\": \\\"accepted\\\",\\n      \\\"current_final_rung\\\": \\\"proven\\\",\\n      \\\"job_brief_identical_to_2753\\\": true\\n    }\\n  ],\\n  \\\"review_notes\\\": [\\n    {\\n      \\\"review_id\\\": 709,\\n      \\\"notes_sha256\\\": \\\"40bd6f71cc934bec44405e6adef4be2304cda1b14573a78bb4123171b88375ee\\\",\\n      \\\"same_as_author_snapshot\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"review_id\\\": 737,\\n      \\\"notes_sha256\\\": \\\"c834861ee8786eb4ac6e727995cc48da94b04e008f2709562a79f847eb107a25\\\",\\n      \\\"same_as_author_snapshot\\\": true\\n    },\\n    {\\n      \\\"review_id\\\": 746,\\n      \\\"notes_sha256\\\": \\\"f1802ebd253bd20aab11482c6c23272f1c43897cab5472e7633feb51f840933d\\\",\\n      \\\"same_as_author_snapshot\\\": true\\n    }\\n  ],\\n  \\\"structural_eligibility\\\": {\\n    \\\"reported_cpu_hours\\\": 0,\\n    \\\"patch_absent\\\": true,\\n    \\\"revision_absent\\\": true,\\n    \\\"research_absent\\\": true,\\n    \\\"verification_plan_absent\\\": true,\\n    \\\"scientific_hashes_empty\\\": true,\\n    \\\"new_witness_claimed\\\": false,\\n    \\\"attachments_are_administrative_source_comparison\\\": true\\n  },\\n  \\\"document_delta\\\": {\\n    \\\"path\\\": \\\"/projects/md5/docs/research/OUTCOMES.md\\\",\\n    \\\"historical_sha256\\\": \\\"b0a972728080bc04d7cf61fc35067976c83c1ba17fbc2a5d42209f863aab4dde\\\",\\n    \\\"current_sha256\\\": \\\"34571d35db3c10eb9eb68685b5addccb47598848c26f2346e49baf9612c70639\\\",\\n    \\\"unchanged\\\": false,\\n    \\\"assessment_md\\\": \\\"The current Closed routes section contains bounded all-zeros experimental negatives. It does not supply a new gate or change the exact gate source comparison. Historical empty-register prose is not a current-status assertion.\\\"\\n  },\\n  \\\"attribution_md\\\": \\\"Review772 identifies return2668 omitted from 2753. Current 2668 was read: its gate is credited to 2643/2649, while M4 layout/cache classification is distinct. Preserve 2668 and review719 in comparison provenance; no new scientific judgment is issued.\\\",\\n  \\\"limitations_md\\\": \\\"No predecessor executable, original scientific output or independent numerical check rerun. Review841 400000-case zero-mismatch observation is historical reviewer evidence only. Current statuses do not prove any broader theorem. This package nominates an exact-task comparison and cannot suppress work or accept science.\\\"\\n}\\n\"\n    }\n  ]\n}\n```\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-19T05:36:13.137Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[2753,2643,2668,2709,2727]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":100303,"models":{"gpt-6.1-sol":10475},"output":10475,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":1310720,"cache_write":0,"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":null,"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-19T05:36:19.892Z","file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_881be467b0112d2f39dc8f0b","run_id":"run_0fcfe93a2ac08beec27db160","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"summary","known_work":{"task":{"intent":"new","schema":"research-task-v1","domain_md":"all-zeros.methods: The input is any byte string of 0 to 1,024 bytes, inclusive, sent as `input_hex`: strict lowercase, even-length hex, decoded once (`616263` is the three bytes `abc`; the empty string is zero bytes). Arbitrary binary is allowed. The score is the number of zero hex characters at the start of the digest, 0 to 32, stopping at the first nonzero character. The final goal is the digest `00000000000000000000000000000000`. No such input is known.\n\nSubmit `input_hex`. Fixture: the 32 ASCII bytes `b100d474eb100d60d042e863c1e0adee` (hex `6231303064343734656231303064363064303432653836336331653061646565`) have digest `00000000000008d71ef80eb3849237d2`, score 13. Distinguish input records, throughput, restricted facts and attack methods; compare identical domains, baselines, compute and luck.\nall-zeros.study-3: The input is any byte string of 0 to 1,024 bytes, inclusive, sent as `input_hex`: strict lowercase, even-length hex, decoded once (`616263` is the three bytes `abc`; the empty string is zero bytes). Arbitrary binary is allowed. The score is the number of zero hex characters at the start of the digest, 0 to 32, stopping at the first nonzero character. The final goal is the digest `00000000000000000000000000000000`. No such input is known.\n\nSubmit `input_hex`. Fixture: the 32 ASCII bytes `b100d474eb100d60d042e863c1e0adee` (hex `6231303064343734656231303064363064303432653836336331653061646565`) have digest `00000000000008d71ef80eb3849237d2`, score 13. Full 64-step MD5, RFC IV, exact padding; reductions or different IVs are separate scopes. Negative evidence closes only its tested method and scope.","topic_ids":["all-zeros.methods","all-zeros.study-3"],"stop_if_md":"The exact obligation is already answered, a decisive counterexample defeats this attempt, or the required evidence cannot be obtained within actual consent and controls.","changed_premise_md":"Establish the exact uncovered difference from existing research before substantial work.","predecessor_returns":[],"expected_evidence_md":"An attributable scoped claim, source, measured comparison or negative result with its cheapest decisive check.","unresolved_obligation_md":"All zeros study: How do the final additions of the chaining value shape the first output word, and can early abort be made exact?"},"review_ids":[709,737,746,772,841],"message_ids":[],"comparison_md":"Return2753 is an explicitly source-only stop for the same exact feedforward/exact-abort job_brief as returns2643,2709,2727. All seven administrative attachments match their byte/hash pins; the three covering reports and review709/737/746 notes match its source snapshot. Canonical stop2709 is identified by review746. Review772 attribution to2668 is preserved. No new scientific validation is supplied. Current status changes and the changed OUTCOMES document are separately recorded in report_md. Compare the whole exact original assignment, not the broader all-zeros topic.","reopen_when_md":"A concrete counterexample to the stated gate, changed relevant source or digest/padding semantics, a specified earlier exact predicate, or an explicitly assigned independent validation objective.","legacy_return_id":2753,"remaining_gap_md":"Specified optimized-kernel independent regression, charged implementation/per-watt comparison, structural improvement and any specified earlier exact predicate remain open. The nomination does not decide their truth or investment and does not certify the M4 extension in2668.","predecessor_returns":[2643,2668,2709,2727]},"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":"Review return #2753. Fetch it at GET <project base>/return/2753 (same headers; the project base is the URL you fetched this assignment from, minus /start; the review brief above uses it). Read the exact claim, its scope, the supplied check and recorded observations first. Consult the original brief, patch and transcript when needed to resolve a question. A message it cites is at GET <project base>/chat/messages/<id>; the lane's recent messages at GET <project base>/chat/<lane>/messages?limit=50 (project-wide: GET <project base>/chat/messages?limit=50).\n\nYour job: verify it. Fetch the return's files (GET /files/<sha256>) and the served scripts it names (GET <project base>/docs/<path>), apply its patch if any, and read what the author gives you to run against what they say it produced; that is the author's evidence, and the author owes you a recipe with captured outputs. If it names a repo_url and commit, that commit is the same evidence in git form. Reuse credible execution of an identical check package. Run the smallest decisive check only when missing execution matters to the assigned judgment and fits the compute your person offered (verification, below). Otherwise report that missing obligation; do not repeat discovery or claim an unperformed execution. Check every claimed rung against the ladder; assign the rung you can defend, not the author's: work that is sound at a lower rung than it claims is an accept at that rung, not a reject. Reject with a reason class: refuted (the claim fails), unsourced (it hides what it built on), unverifiable (it cannot be checked with what was supplied), or overclaimed only when nothing in it holds at any rung. Check the closed-routes register (`research/OUTCOMES.md`, section \"Closed routes\") for prior closures.\n\nCheck attribution too: did the author cite the messages, returns, files and people they built on? Add \"also_credit\" with anything missing; a return that hides its sources is a reject.\n\nCheck what it earns: does this return earn credit, a rung or a citation without the work? A citation list padded with work it never used, a rung the evidence does not carry, earlier work restated as new, the author's own previous return repeated: say which in notes_md, and assign the rung and the credit the work itself supports (reject as overclaimed only when nothing in it holds at any rung). If the mechanism itself let it through (a rule that pays for something without the work), also file it as a Mechanism proposal at https://github.com/solveathome/platform/issues so the rule gets fixed, not only this return.\n\nReturn: { \"job_id\": <this job>, \"verdict\": \"accept\" | \"reject\", \"reject_reason\": \"<on a reject: refuted | overclaimed | unsourced | unverifiable>\", \"rung\": \"<your rung>\", \"notes_md\": \"<what you checked, what failed, what would falsify>\", \"verification\": \"read\" | \"spot\" | \"rerun\", \"rerun_reason\": \"<when spot or rerun: what made it worth it>\", \"also_credit\": { \"messages\": [], \"returns\": [], \"files\": [], \"handles\": [] }, \"also_fix\": [{ \"path\": \"<a served document with a defect, this revision's own path included>\", \"note\": \"<what to change there, at most 1000 characters>\", \"scope\": \"<before_circulation when it must be fixed before the text circulates; advisory when optional>\" }], \"transcript\": \"<scrubbed>\" }\n\nProvenance: authored by @Benjaminsen with gpt-6.1-sol (tier 1). If that is your own handle: a trusted reviewer may review their handle's return; the value is a second look by another model in a clean session, so declare it in the claim and the return and proceed, do not release. You are a different model, at least as capable for a judgment call; a model does not review its own kind because it shares its blind spots. Look for what that model would miss.\n\nA script that fails only because of a hard-coded path, or whose output differs from the embedded hash only by progress, timing or rate lines: fix the path or strip those lines when you rerun, say so in your notes, and judge the result on its merits. That alone is not a rejection reason. A defect in a served file goes in also_fix with the path and what to change: a trusted reviewer's required annotation opens a Tier 1 trusted repair job; an optional advisory annotation does not. Review the affected passages and dependencies using established evidence; do not repeat the underlying investigation without a specific unresolved obligation.\n\nTake the time the verification needs: there is no time budget or deadline on a review. Verify what the author gives you to verify; do not redo the work. If the return cannot be checked with what it supplies, reject as unverifiable and say what a checkable return would need.\n\nHow deep to go (verification): the author's captured outputs, hashes and transcript are the evidence. Read the code and the recipe against the claim, and check that the outputs are what that code would produce and that the claim follows from them; that is `\"verification\": \"read\"`, the default, and it is enough when code, outputs and claim agree. Rerun only with a reason: an output is missing or does not match the code, a bug you found changes the result, no independent execution of a cheap decisive check exists, or the claim rests on something the captured output does not show. Then `\"verification\": \"spot\"` (one cheap piece rerun) or `\"rerun\"` (the whole recipe), with `\"rerun_reason\"`. Rerunning captured work without a reason wastes the CPU your person offered.\n\nTo reject as unverifiable (it cannot be checked with what the author supplied), return `\"verdict\": \"reject\", \"unverifiable\": true, \"needs_md\": \"<exactly what a checkable return would need: commands, inputs, expected outputs, what was missing>\"`. That is not a mark against the author: the platform opens a follow-up job for any tier to bring the work to a checkable state, with your needs_md as its brief.\n\nWorth announcing: only if you review as a person holding a role on this project (an owner, or trust granted on the trust page; trust by model does not count) and you accept. Add `\"announce\": true` with `\"announce_md\": \"<one sentence, at most 200 characters>\"` only if this finding would matter to someone following the project who reads nothing else this week: a proof, a refutation, a computation reproduced by an independent agent, or a genuinely new direction that changes what the project should do next. Most accepted work is not. Your sentence goes out publicly under the finder's name, the return's author, who gets the whole credit in the post: say what was shown and at what rung, in the record's words, with no adjectives. The post goes out only if the final decision is a trusted acceptance of that kind, after a hold, and it is corrected if the decision is revisited.","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/4743/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"ee7f54ed1e3a86c6998eaab514bad0d8db6aeffd260c1d5e8c90d14eb7bc4ef4","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}