{"id":5098,"job_id":9909,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #4991 (job 9892 package, route 341 window 11): 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 job9892-verify.py` ran on a clean copy under Python 3.14.8 on x86_64 Linux with no network. It exited 0 in 0.074 s with empty stderr. Stdout matches the declared expected output (`VERIFY_OK job_id=9892 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=126255136505856 cum_cands=1412522056876032 ghs=60.5966 D8=0.9963 cum_D8=0.9999 verified_ge9=1845 submissions=98 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-10 checker (job 9876):\n- predecessors now include #4973, and windows_completed is 12;\n- seeds = (9892 << 32) | 1/2, with the window-10 seeds added to the prior list;\n- window10_job9876_candidates is asserted equal to 121,663,982,141,440;\n- twelve-window sums are 1,286,266,920,370,176 (hard-coded windows 0-10) + this window, and GPU batches are 281,000 + this window;\n- floors are 26,500 batches and 1.21e14 candidates for the window, then 1.407e15 candidates, 307,500 batches, 5.0 for 2^48 and 0.3125 for 2^52 cumulative.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,845 score ≥ 9 hits (1747 at 9, 94 at 10, 4 at 11, none at 12; 1713 GPU, 132 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-11 null model for k = 8..14 is recomputed, and so is D8 = 0.996258 over 27,500 GPU batches.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and twelve-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- The 98 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 10:\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 0-10 sums are hard-coded.\n  - Raw candidates and both cumulative rates are never read.\n  - The \"1,232 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 60.5966 GH/s = total/wall (2083.5363 s): GPU 56.6881 + CPU 3.9085. This meets the prereg target of ≥ 60.4. Window seconds sum to the GPU seconds, per-window rates recompute, and window batches sum to 27,500.\n- **Cumulative.**\n  - Candidates = the sum over windows 0..11 = 1,412,522,056,876,032 = GPU + CPU fresh candidates. Fraction of 2^48 is 5.018286; fraction of 2^52 is 0.313643.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z all recompute (k = 12: 6 vs 5.0183, z 0.44; k = 11: 71 vs 80.29, z -1.04; k = 10: 1232 vs 1284.68, z -1.47).\n  - Cumulative GPU batches = 308,500.\n- **Cross-window additivity** (xwin.py, ALL_OK). Measured against the window-10 package (return #4973):\n  - cumulative candidates, raw candidates, GPU batches, wall time (23,399.2882 s) and k = 8..14 observed counts each equal the window-10 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  - \"60.5306 GH/s\" (the table row \"23,399.2882 s / 60.5306 GH/s\", and \"60.531 GH/s\" in the summary) 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 1.4125e15 candidates.\n  - The fresh cumulative rate is 60.3660 GH/s. The package's own cumulative_fresh_effective_ghs field says 60.366, but the return text never quotes it.\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 42485816492033, batch 2100, submission #7752.\n- **Submissions.** 98 unique ids and candidates, #7752–#7849 contiguous (score 11 at #7752–#7755, score 10 at #7756–#7849), all live, verified and non-duplicate. Score and digest equal the recomputed md5. The submitted set equals the score ≥ 10 hit set. The 1,232 cumulative figure equals cumulative k ≥ 10 observed. The quoted id span #6616–#7849 holds 1,234 ids, so the span is not contiguous (it skips #6678 and #7751).\n\n**Return text.** This return's report_md and claim are current window-11 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 job9892-…, 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 10; 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-10 package. One correction is needed: the cumulative rate should read 60.37 GH/s fresh.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T21:17:14.810Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":100,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":21578},"output":21578,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":2216306,"cache_write":84423,"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_9e39c4d72ec28f90bb38cac3","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/4991 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: \"e2025a52968525c7ab7e1fdb4129ace243664a291669c2f56429e06bf3b4f12d\", 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/5098/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"28802e537ce3c277d739cedce66004a7dab5fbf42b1c770ddfe36336a73d8a94","name":"job9892-check-stdout.txt","bytes":180},{"sha256":"b125af4683cc725843ac3a0eff976821b05a50982002ce0e94e97ae02915e364","name":"job9892-check-audit.py","bytes":6637},{"sha256":"ffbe9fa988f9d3b3fc297005a359edb71cac0a40c722ffcb3c80e73c4eb4549e","name":"job9892-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4629},{"sha256":"894ca1341f94244f984e3876586f3b32a1702cfb2d152a45acd451ab83e28791","name":"job9892-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6098},{"sha256":"4172949845102d8d90b14676957a6c050bfeb7742fd2bb625a72754d38dbb920","name":"job9892-check-ctl.py","bytes":8753},{"sha256":"56e5623d0b560862583bfd9dd4c6b4a64106cb61bc8d403d82303685eb0613cd","name":"job9892-check-xwin.py","bytes":1368},{"sha256":"0e55ca4d743f3a5ecc68062722e7332a4b0e34acb3eae0cf9b3b3d4d41b79b73","name":"job9892-check-xwin.txt","bytes":456}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"c1e66502442f666ff45e4ced45109d3e64a72bc7192249ee5d4d085b2ead144a","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}