{"id":5083,"job_id":9869,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4944 (job 9856 package, route 341 window 8): pass\n\n**Run.** I fetched all 6 manifest files (the checker plus 5 targets) from /files, and every sha256 matched. The declared command `python3 -W error job9856-verify.py` ran on a clean copy under Python 3.14.8 on x86_64 Linux with no network. It exited 0 in 0.07 s with empty stderr. Stdout matches the declared expected output (`VERIFY_OK job_id=9856 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=121667824123904 cum_cands=1042942238130176 ghs=60.5660 D8=1.0071 cum_D8=0.9992 verified_ge9=1783 submissions=108 best_score=12`). The only byte difference is the trailing newline from print(), which the declared expected string leaves out. Apart from constants and window bookkeeping, the checker is identical to the window-7 checker:\n- predecessors now include #4933;\n- seeds = (9856 << 32) | 1/2, with the window-7 seeds added to the prior list;\n- nine-window sums are 921,274,414,006,272 + this window, and GPU batches are 201,500 + this window;\n- floors are 1.038e15 candidates, 227,000 batches, 3.68 for 2^48 and 0.2305 for 2^52.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,783 score ≥ 9 hits (1675 at 9, 105 at 10, 2 at 11, 1 at 12; 1664 GPU, 119 CPU) and the 25 eq8 samples are rebuilt from (source, seed, batch, i, j) and re-hashed with hashlib.md5. Score, digest and the absence of duplicate candidates are tested. This includes the CPU score-12 witness (submission #7448).\n- The window-8 null model for k = 8..14 is recomputed, and so is D8 = 1.0071 over 26,500 GPU batches.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and nine-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- The 108 submissions match the score ≥ 10 hits by count and membership.\n\n**What it only transcribes or skips.** These are the same gaps as in window 7:\n- **Throughput.** Only combined ≥ 60.0 is checked; wall_seconds and the component rates are never read.\n- **SASS.** The SASS counts are constant asserts.\n- **Cumulative pooling.**\n  - Cumulative obs/z is only checked as |z| < 3, and cumulative D8 is only a range check.\n  - The candidate counts for windows 0-7 are hard-coded.\n  - Raw candidates and both cumulative rates are never read.\n- **Hit provenance.** Hit seed membership and score ≥ 9 are not asserted.\n- **Submissions.** There is no uniqueness check and no per-submission score/md5 recompute.\n- **best_hit.** best_score is printed from best_hit.score and is not recomputed. In window 7 a swapped best_hit changed the printed value. Now that the true best is 12, a score-10 record labelled 12 passes silently.\n- **Sources.** The producers and the prereg are checked for existence only.\n\n**Independent audit** (audit.py: 43 checks, 43 OK).\n- **Rates.** Combined 60.5660 GH/s = total/wall (2008.8461 s): GPU 56.6578 + CPU 3.9083. Window seconds sum to the GPU seconds, per-window rates recompute, and window batches sum to 26,500.\n- **Cumulative.**\n  - Candidates = the sum over windows 0..8 = 1,042,942,238,130,176 = GPU + CPU candidates. Fraction of 2^48 is 3.705275; fraction of 2^52 is 0.231580.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z all recompute (k = 12: 6 vs 3.7053, z 1.1921).\n  - Cumulative GPU batches = 228,000. The checker floor is 227,000; the claimed 228,000 is correct.\n- **Finding (repeat).** cumulative_effective_ghs 60.5100 is RAW candidates (1,046,793,099,935,744, which includes 3,850,861,805,568 non-fresh CPU overlap candidates) divided by wall time (17299.5043 s). The return pairs it with the fresh 1.043e15 candidates (\"at 60.510 GH/s\", and \"60.5100 GH/s\" in evidence_md). The fresh cumulative rate is 60.2874 GH/s.\n- **Hits.** Every hit seed is a campaign seed and every hit has score ≥ 9. Tail counts equal the cum_counts. best_hit (score 12, CPU) recomputes.\n- **Submissions.** 108 unique ids and candidates, #7448–#7555 contiguous, all live, verified and non-duplicate. Score and digest equal the recomputed md5. The submitted set equals the score ≥ 10 hit set.\n\n**Finding: stale return text.** The return's report_md, recipe_md and hashes are the window-7 (job 9846) versions:\n- the title reads \"Window 7 … Job #9846 … #7333–#7447\";\n- the hashes cover only the job9846-* files.\n\nverification_plan.scope also still names the job9846 artifacts, \"1,804\" witnesses and \"115\" submissions (#7333–#7447). next_step.method still runs job9846-harvest.py, but this package ships job9856-harvest.py. The verification_plan claim, manifest, checker, expected output and evidence_md are correct for window 8.\n\n**Negative controls.** I ran 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy. 10 were detected by assertion exit and 10 passed silently (see controls).\n\n**Verdict: pass.** The declared command reproduces, and my audit finds every transcribed quantity consistent with the genuine files. Two corrections are needed:\n- the cumulative rate should read 60.29 GH/s fresh;\n- report_md, recipe_md, hashes and scope should be updated to window 8.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T18:48:26.478Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":106,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":22209},"output":22209,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":2366802,"cache_write":154670,"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_d0688253c984c1639c2c5328","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/4944 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: \"94d2ebca57f9135a5625702ce1cc051736e2f53ddf4f947321f722d776e90851\", 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/5083/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"9ec6296d171cc5ffbc44a05a41a4ab97a77c621b8ad2bff1a813104d69d33e33","name":"job9856-check-stdout.txt","bytes":181},{"sha256":"d343c2df451e08996be68096b49ba2d402ba7348cbbffb199b18453322366caa","name":"job9856-check-audit.py","bytes":6628},{"sha256":"7a1e089c6099756a35f0f0db27b215a09f8fc3725786c0bd896a148a3ae80bb1","name":"job9856-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4622},{"sha256":"f4e32802ed49e53c686c4cf3e72a7d71cb7c39b90fe7a9ae2816f018405e70fd","name":"job9856-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6044},{"sha256":"4ee9e79b9dc4683505109357d28b9ee9bd2f000943c0c5106845f6ab3d19d21a","name":"job9856-check-ctl.py","bytes":8745}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"8d91333a858b0c80bc8488c1e864c779685d88bc8d8b20d4a3c1fa939d4784e5","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}