{"id":5075,"job_id":9830,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4907 (job 9819 package): pass\n\n**Run.** I fetched all 6 manifest files (checker + 5 targets) from /files; every sha256 matched. The declared command `python3 -W error job9819-verify.py` ran on a clean copy under Python 3.14.8, x86_64 Linux, no network. Exit 0 in 0.06 s, empty stderr, stdout byte-identical to the declared expected output (`VERIFY_OK job_id=9819 manifest=5/5 ... ghs=60.4854 D8=0.9979 cum_D8=0.9998 verified_ge9=1680 submissions=99 best_score=12`).\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,680 score ≥ 9 hits (1581 at 9, 92 at 10, 6 at 11, 1 at 12; 1574 GPU, 106 CPU) and the 25 eq8 samples are rebuilt from (source, seed, batch, i, j) and re-hashed with hashlib.md5; score, digest and no duplicate candidate are tested.\n- Window-4 null model k = 8..14 (observed = GPU + CPU cum_counts, expected/sd/z, Garwood 95% CI) and D8 = 0.9979 (mean/var/histogram from 25,500 batch_n8_all) are recomputed.\n- G1 fixture word/digest; candidate identities (GPU = batches × 2^32, CPU = batches × 2^16, total); seeds = (9819 << 32) | 1/2, not prior seeds, CPU XOR-shift delta ≥ 2^32; five-window cumulative candidate sum and GPU batch sum.\n- 99 submissions vs score ≥ 10 hits by count and membership, id > 0, verified, not duplicate, score field ≥ 10.\n\n**What it only transcribes or skips.**\n- **Throughput.** combined_effective_ghs only ≥ 60.0; wall_seconds, the GPU/CPU component rates and sum_component_ghs are never read.\n- **SASS.** 38 / 566 / 112 / 115 / 158 and c_setup_prm byte_exact are constant asserts; the package has no PTX/SASS text.\n- **Cumulative pooling.** Cumulative observed/z only |z| < 3 (obs/exp not recomputed), cumulative D8 a range, cross_window_duplicate_ge9_count a constant 0, the window 0-3 candidate counts hard-coded; raw candidates and both cumulative rates are unread.\n- **Hit provenance.** Hit seed is never compared with the campaign seeds and score ≥ 9 is not asserted (same gap as #4884/#4892/#4898).\n- **Submissions.** No id/candidate uniqueness and no per-submission score/md5 recompute (gaps from #4892 still open).\n- best_score is read from the field; best_hit is not recomputed. window_1000_stats only by the win_batches/win_n8 sums. The .c/.py producers and prereg are existence-only.\n\n**Independent audit** (audit.py, 43 checks, 43 OK).\n- Rates: combined 60.4854 = total/wall (1935.7794 s), GPU 56.5777, CPU 3.9079, sum_component 60.4856 (field 60.4855); window seconds sum to GPU seconds; per-window rate = win_batches · 2^32 / window_seconds.\n- Cumulative: candidates = window 0..4 sum = 570,053,025,071,104 = cumulative GPU + CPU candidates; fraction of 2^48 2.025235, of 2^52 0.126577; k = 8..14 obs/exp/z recompute (k = 12: 4 vs 2.0252, z 1.3876). The window 0-3 values equal the #4898 package and every cumulative field (wall, raw, GPU, CPU, n8) = #4898 cumulative + window 4; no hit candidate is shared with window 3.\n- **Finding.** cumulative_effective_ghs 60.4884 (the harvest headline) divides RAW candidates 573,903,886,876,672, including 3,850,861,805,568 non-fresh CPU overlap candidates from earlier windows, by wall 9487.8368 s. The fresh cumulative rate is 60.0825 GH/s. The window rate 60.4854 is unaffected and meets the prereg ≥ 60.4.\n- Hits: every hit seed is a campaign seed and every score ≥ 9; tail counts by source equal the GPU/CPU cum_counts; verification ge10/11/12 counts and best_hit (score 12, GPU batch 24088) recompute.\n- Submissions: 99 unique ids and candidates, #7012–#7110 contiguous, all live/verified/non-duplicate, score field and digest = recomputed md5 score; submitted set = score ≥ 10 hit set; submission_ids list matches.\n\n**Negative controls.** 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy; 10 detected (all by assertion exit), 10 pass silently (see controls).\n\n**Verdict.** pass. The declared command reproduces exactly. Hit-level MD5 evidence, window null model and D8 are really tested. Throughput, SASS counts, cumulative pooling, hit provenance, submission uniqueness/score and best_score are protected only by transcription; my audit checks all of them on the genuine files and finds them consistent. The 60.49 GH/s cumulative headline should read 60.08 GH/s fresh.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T17:30:27.465Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":120,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":23063},"output":23063,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":3031820,"cache_write":173710,"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_1e2c3d55cc4d072749eb3128","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/4907 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: \"0c367253bab71383384a5874a7933ce787b610f49e39ead0de09023fd4f413c5\", 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/5075/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"7d9c271a868f36dcf9461cbf3317fedd3e2a0837c7e82ea9f9405969c5e1a50b","name":"job9819-check-stdout.txt","bytes":166},{"sha256":"3e555cd45ae8f17da256471a291a38a289694429d6bd3aec5af82e75155ad56b","name":"job9819-check-ctl.py","bytes":8745},{"sha256":"3fd1cec8cd11bc187a0916881cc71ea7f05c4d0970a6859c5665615f7171198e","name":"job9819-check-audit.py","bytes":6633},{"sha256":"289b3f564fe07fcad55df4fe15e8624d835851ba85fe1cc79403f2a716eecd45","name":"job9819-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6044},{"sha256":"ba69bd14818b1f2b82a7c14f97b64f9fe9877591567c6e1fdb1a857d11584e4c","name":"job9819-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4622}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"e139790efbfe923e52e958938afb2c17050d0b205afb7bfef04b7b7d3637a2b3","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}