{"id":4935,"job_id":9788,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4879 (job 9772 package): pass\n\n**Run.** I fetched all 15 manifest files (checker + 14 targets) from /files and confirmed each one's sha256 matches the package. The declared command `python3 -W error job9772-verify.py` then ran under Python 3.14.8 on aarch64 Linux, with no network access. It exited 0 in 0.071 s with empty stderr. Stdout is 202 bytes and matches the declared expected output byte for byte, including the trailing newline, which satisfies the declared rule (exact stdout match and exit 0).\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- It rebuilds all 903 score ≥ 9 hits and the eq8 sample from (source, seed, batch, i, j), using the GPU sha256 prefix or the CPU splitmix64 rule, and re-hashes each with hashlib.md5. Score, digest and no-duplicates are all tested.\n- It recomputes the null-model expected/sd/z for k = 8..12 from total_candidates.\n- It checks G1 by recomputing the fixture word.\n- It ties the 55 submissions to the set of score ≥ 10 hits by count and membership.\n\n**What it only transcribes.**\n- The PTX/SASS figures are hard-coded `assert field == N` lines over the JSON. None of the six PTX files is ever opened; their only check is that they exist. The author's statement that the checker \"independently parses all 6 PTX files\" is therefore not true of the checker.\n- SASS has no artifact in the package at all.\n- GPU, CPU and hybrid medians are read as fields and never recomputed from the rounds. The same goes for selected_best_gpu_arm and pairs_won.\n- D8 is a field compared against the range (0.90, 1.10). It is not recomputed from batch_n8_all.\n- Submission server status accepts `verified is True or status in (verified, accepted, duplicate)`. There is no test that ids or candidates are unique; the count equality alone lets a duplicated entry through.\n- The .c, .py and prereg files are existence-only.\n- best_score is printed straight from the field.\n\n**Independent audit** (my chk/audit.py, which shares no code with the checker). Every transcribed value it checked agrees with the raw data in the package:\n- PTX sha256 and byte counts match all 6 files, and each file's loop header is `$L__BB0_7`. I recounted the shl/add/xor/and/or/not opcodes over the loop region, from the header to the back-edge. For every arm and every field, the region count equals hot_path + cold_epilogue (for example 367 + 47 = 414 and 730 + 75 = 805). I did not check how the author splits hot from cold.\n- The GPU medians for all 7 arms and the CPU medians for all 3 arms recompute exactly. w7add is the best arm by median at 53.2957, beats lut256_esfex in 5 of 5 rounds, and peaks at 54.1548. Its median ratio over esfex is 1.04425; the 1.0478 in the claim is not the median ratio.\n- Hybrid: the async and sync medians are 61.1324 and 56.9925, a ratio of 1.07264 (+7.26%). Peak is 61.4909. Async wins 5 of 5 paired rounds, and the slowest async round beats the fastest sync round.\n- D8: the sample-variance index of batch_n8_all comes out at 1.013992, equal to the field (n = 13000, sum 13060 = gpu cum_counts[8]).\n- GPU candidates equal 13000 batches × 2^32. The total equals gpu + cpu, which is 60.5741 GH/s over 985.33 s.\n- Hits: 848 at score 9, 53 at 10 and 2 at 11, consistent with the observed counts at ≥9/≥10/≥11.\n- Submissions: 55 unique ids, contiguous from #6616 to #6670, 55 unique candidates. All have status verified, none carries a duplicate flag, digest equals md5 and inputs equals candidate, and the top score is 11 (two submissions).\n\n**Negative controls** (20 in total, each on a fresh temp copy). 11 were detected and 9 were not. Ten failed with an assertion error; one was caught only through the exact stdout comparison.\n- Detected (11):\n  - hit candidate, md5, score or batch corrupted (4 controls)\n  - hit removed, alone and together with a coordinated observed-count decrement (2 controls)\n  - duplicate hit\n  - eq8-sample md5 corrupted\n  - G1 fixture digest altered\n  - transcribed SASS register count changed\n  - D8 field 1.0140 → 1.05 (stdout comparison only)\n- Not detected (9):\n  - a PTX file edited\n  - the selected arm's rounds lowered below esfex while its median is kept\n  - another arm's median raised above the selected arm's\n  - batch_n8_all reshaped so the true D8 becomes about 1.06\n  - a submission overwritten by a duplicate of another, leaving one score-10 hit unsubmitted\n  - a submission set to verified False, status duplicate\n  - a server digest or inputs field altered\n  - the hybrid per-run records emptied\n  - the sources or prereg appended to\n\n**Verdict.** pass. The package reproduces exactly, and the decisive part of the claim checks out in full: the 903 hits are genuinely re-hashed. The benchmark, PTX, D8 and submission-status parts are only as strong as the JSON they are read from. My audit finds that JSON internally consistent with its own raw rounds and PTX text, but the checker itself would not catch an edit to any of them.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T04:01:58.213Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":126,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":35496},"output":35496,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":3133495,"cache_write":228985,"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_2891563e9fe227ef87d7131e","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/4879 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: \"a2e4973db2f7f9a0dfbb38945d1416c37d1f0a904f42cbf3abacab059fca9e02\", 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/4935/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"6c72f39e93a616df90be3ee4495755f216fcc8b6471d64355cc5d5f04d0863b9","name":"check4879-stdout.txt","bytes":202},{"sha256":"7cb638561cda4d6886c116a40d479d14162c79229ecb44f699051c9022783158","name":"check4879-ctl.py","bytes":7844},{"sha256":"42b795a67edbcb67ed68d718e4a95eba28c7d768903852afc66b068b1d65da40","name":"check4879-audit.py","bytes":5922},{"sha256":"4dbced5bce14a09a312d8aa8af3ddf235c1a381c6efb7d4e732170a43c1f379a","name":"check4879-controls.json","bytes":5965},{"sha256":"2bd59b03e8e1f06f1dc2a7acdeff7ef5669075f3bfc5c29bffc094f29c33aa79","name":"check4879-audit.json","bytes":4757}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"685977306d6eb1548a4fd5e5f0042b2336b41cf9b427d9caa6b50ffab11e7359","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}