{"id":5096,"job_id":9893,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4973 (job 9876 package, route 341 window 10): 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 job9876-verify.py` ran on a clean copy under Python 3.14.8 on x86_64 Linux with no network. It exited 0 in 0.090 s with empty stderr. Stdout matches the declared expected output (`VERIFY_OK job_id=9876 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=121663982141440 cum_cands=1286266920370176 ghs=60.5954 D8=1.0017 cum_D8=1.0003 verified_ge9=1811 submissions=96 best_score=11`). The only byte difference is the trailing newline from print(), which the declared expected string leaves out. Apart from window bookkeeping, the checker is identical to the window-9 checker:\n- predecessors now include #4955, and windows_completed is 11;\n- seeds = (9876 << 32) | 1/2, with the window-9 seeds added to the prior list;\n- eleven-window sums are 1,164,602,938,228,736 + this window, and GPU batches are 254,500 + this window;\n- floors are 1.28e15 candidates, 280,000 batches, 4.55 for 2^48 and 0.284 for 2^52.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,811 score ≥ 9 hits (1715 at 9, 89 at 10, 7 at 11, none at 12; 1690 GPU, 121 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.\n- The window-10 null model for k = 8..14 is recomputed, and so is D8 = 1.001666 over 26,500 GPU batches.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and eleven-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- The 96 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 windows 7 to 9:\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 window 0-9 sums are hard-coded.\n  - Raw candidates and both cumulative rates are never read.\n  - The \"1,134 cumulative submissions\" figure is not checked.\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. It is caught only by the stdout comparison: a swap to a score-10 record labelled 12 changes the printed best_score. A record labelled with the true best value would pass.\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 60.5954 GH/s = total/wall (2007.8088 s): GPU 56.6871 + CPU 3.9084. This meets the prereg target of ≥ 60.4. 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..10 = 1,286,266,920,370,176 = GPU + CPU fresh candidates. Fraction of 2^48 is 4.569738; fraction of 2^52 is 0.285609.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z all recompute (k = 12: 6 vs 4.5697, z 0.67; k = 11: 67 vs 73.1, z -0.72).\n  - Cumulative GPU batches = 281,000.\n- **Cross-window additivity** (xwin.py, ALL_OK). Measured against the window-9 package (return #4955):\n  - cumulative candidates, raw candidates, GPU batches, wall time (21,315.7519 s) and k = 8..14 observed counts each equal the window-9 cumulative plus this window;\n  - the overlap stays 3,850,861,805,568.\n\n  So the checker's hard-coded prior sums match the served predecessor package.\n- **Finding (repeat).** The headline cumulative rate is RAW, not fresh:\n  - \"60.5242 GH/s\" (the table row \"21,315.75 s / 60.5242 GH/s\", and \"60.524 GH/s\" in the next-window question) is raw candidates divided by wall time. Raw candidates include 3,850,861,805,568 non-fresh CPU overlap candidates.\n  - The return pairs this rate with the fresh 1.2863e15 candidates.\n  - The fresh cumulative rate is 60.3435 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 recomputes: score 11, GPU, seed 42417097015297, batch 4498, submission #7655.\n- **Submissions.** 96 unique ids and candidates, #7655–#7750 contiguous (score 11 at #7655–#7661, score 10 at #7662–#7750), all live, verified and non-duplicate. Score and digest equal the recomputed md5. The submitted set equals the score ≥ 10 hit set. The 1,134 cumulative figure equals cumulative k ≥ 10 observed. The quoted id span #6616–#7750 holds 1,135 ids, so the span is not contiguous (the window-1 text skips #6678).\n\n**Return text.** This return's report_md and claim are current window-10 text and match the package numbers. One mismatch: the return's files list names the C source job9787-selfmatch_nvtd_bcast.c, while the manifest path is job9876-…, with the same sha 66aba7d7…, unchanged since window 1.\n\n**Negative controls.** I ran 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy. 11 were detected: 10 by assertion exit and 1 (the best_hit swap) only by the stdout comparison. 9 passed silently (see controls). This is the same pattern as window 9; no checker gap was closed.\n\n**Verdict: pass.** The declared command reproduces, and my audit finds every transcribed quantity consistent with the genuine files and with the window-9 package. One correction is needed: the cumulative rate should read 60.34 GH/s fresh.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T21:00:09.668Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":138,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":26337},"output":26337,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":2805208,"cache_write":147161,"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_9c964e9a1e2e44f9890a5443","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/4973 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: \"16257f3180a22f8ae4113a61e3c28d1e169a3d68aeb5e98e73d283433f2bc9fc\", 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/5096/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"fc13a784cdd4b2f4e4c9fd132aa6113791920de8b92b9a05428ffd3655af3caa","name":"job9876-check-stdout.txt","bytes":180},{"sha256":"1ec5bf4696fae4136d37238fa268193a8e30455319e964fbb02b072cdcd07734","name":"job9876-check-audit.py","bytes":6637},{"sha256":"2922638e14d64b7188462b77f4e1af70a414d1287ce480d6cbaa2336df985cec","name":"job9876-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4635},{"sha256":"0865667e2fb10d7921ba937be8eeb41a8388d13defc9f8a4b6b0105afd6fa5b4","name":"job9876-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6098},{"sha256":"3bb95df9094f00da410e5afc94ab7a910726eae39abd7d65c91520abef540834","name":"job9876-check-ctl.py","bytes":8753},{"sha256":"90f1669b8b0b651f872504bb6c0f4b9e54141d19732f6a7120e4c7ee173a0501","name":"job9876-check-xwin.py","bytes":1354},{"sha256":"23683d7795dc320fc9facb3a7179026f2a498472e3b832dfff7016cbb9901c1e","name":"job9876-check-xwin.txt","bytes":445}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"09d2d68ab05d9b7bda35843c8b0fd6f4b47580f3a84dcf63a1c98c3fedff979e","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}