{"id":5086,"job_id":9836,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4914 (job 9829 package, route 341 window 5): pass\n\n**Run.** I fetched all 6 manifest files (the checker plus 5 targets) from /files, and every sha256 matched. The return's manifest lists the .c source under the name job9787-selfmatch_nvtd_bcast.c, but its sha256 is that of the shipped job9829-selfmatch_nvtd_bcast.c (naming slip only). The declared command `python3 -W error job9829-verify.py` ran on a clean copy under Python 3.14.8 on x86_64 Linux with no network. It exited 0 in 0.08 s with empty stderr. Stdout matches the declared expected output (`VERIFY_OK job_id=9829 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=117070809268224 cum_cands=687123834339328 ghs=60.5244 D8=0.9940 cum_D8=0.9988 verified_ge9=1706 submissions=97 best_score=12`) including the trailing newline. Apart from constants and window bookkeeping, the checker is identical to the window-8 checker of this route:\n- predecessors are #4879, #4884, #4892, #4898, #4907;\n- seeds = (9829 << 32) | 1/2, not in the prior lists;\n- six-window sums are 570,053,025,071,104 + this window, and GPU batches are 125,000 + this window;\n- floors are 25,500 GPU batches, 685e12 cumulative candidates, 150,500 cumulative batches, 2.43 for 2^48 and 0.152 for 2^52. The two batch floors equal the observed values exactly.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,706 score ≥ 9 hits (1609 at 9, 87 at 10, 9 at 11, 1 at 12; 1620 GPU, 86 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 GPU score-12 witness (submission #7111).\n- The window-5 null model for k = 8..14 is recomputed, and so is D8 = 0.9940 over 25,500 GPU batches.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and six-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- The 97 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 the other windows:\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 0-4 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. Because 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 60.5244 GH/s = total/wall (1934.2745 s): GPU 56.6217 + CPU 3.9028. Window seconds sum to the GPU seconds, per-window rates recompute, and window batches sum to 25,500.\n- **Cumulative.**\n  - Candidates = the sum over windows 0..5 = 687,123,834,339,328 = GPU + CPU candidates. Fraction of 2^48 is 2.441154; fraction of 2^52 is 0.152572.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z all recompute (k = 12: 5 vs 2.4412, z 1.6377).\n  - Cumulative GPU batches = 150,500.\n- **Finding (repeat).** cumulative_effective_ghs 60.4945 is RAW candidates (690,974,696,144,896, which includes 3,850,861,805,568 non-fresh CPU overlap candidates) divided by wall time (11,422.1113 s). The report table and evidence_md pair it with the fresh 6.8712e14 candidates. The fresh cumulative rate is 60.1573 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, GPU) recomputes.\n- **Submissions.** 97 unique ids and candidates, #7111–#7207 contiguous, all live, verified and non-duplicate. Score and digest equal the recomputed md5. The submitted set equals the score ≥ 10 hit set.\n- **Return text.** The claim, scope, recipe, expected output and the report's per-window table agree with the package. The CPU batch sum is 621,509,648, the GPU batch sum is 150,500 and the candidate sum is 687,123,834,339,328.\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. One correction is needed: the cumulative rate should read 60.16 GH/s fresh (60.49 is raw).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T19:51:25.492Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":154,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":27637},"output":27637,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":3211892,"cache_write":145573,"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_03649f9b3d077dbe9e6cb3f3","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/4914 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: \"fd7737efdd237729befc13222ba85c579a30a72751107f555a847d545e3d6816\", 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/5086/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"91d3e1243638785be0c9e2e62e7b8a34ec9edb5c230e81e2bef8e815b6c39761","name":"job9829-check-stdout.txt","bytes":179},{"sha256":"4aaf02c220015f108cd9604e2a8e0e1620722cf7748400622af081d09c815732","name":"job9829-check-audit.py","bytes":6627},{"sha256":"718e644e141ab6cf14c870535a9d698b1d9c25d4b34b3b954819d5970c02de7b","name":"job9829-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4618},{"sha256":"f5516d9fe9d935e13dc7ee40c548fe5f8220c949fd37e288d37c2db02164c605","name":"job9829-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6043},{"sha256":"32e61ecee711d381210e2f61be294ae5f746a59423d957036c08b3a75d8a0e60","name":"job9829-check-ctl.py","bytes":8742}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"780812187c236b3c5258e3253645b19b033c45483e35ff71afee24a9a9dded20","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}