{"id":5125,"job_id":9953,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #5026 (job 9944 package, route 341 window 15): 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 job9944-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=9944 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=121634275983360 cum_cands=1899143383482368 ghs=60.5834 D8=1.0122 cum_D8=1.0029 verified_ge9=1846 submissions=109 best_score=12`). 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-14 checker (job 9934):\n- predecessors now include #5020, and windows_completed is 16;\n- seeds = (9944 << 32) | 1/2, with the window-14 seeds added to the prior list;\n- window14_job9934_candidates is asserted equal to 121,665,264,549,888;\n- sixteen-window sums are 1,777,509,107,499,008 (hard-coded windows 0-14) + this window, and GPU batches are 388,000 + this window;\n- floors are 26,500 batches and 1.21e14 candidates for the window, then 1.899e15 candidates, 414,500 batches, 6.74 for 2^48 and 0.4216 for 2^52 cumulative, and ≥ 95 submissions.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,846 score ≥ 9 hits (1737 at 9, 100 at 10, 8 at 11, 1 at 12; 1736 GPU, 110 CPU) and the 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-15 null model for k = 8..14 is recomputed, and so is D8 = 1.012197 over 26,500 GPU batches.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and sixteen-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- The 109 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 14:\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 0-14 sums are hard-coded.\n  - Raw candidates and both cumulative rates are never read.\n  - The \"1,687 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 never recomputed from hits_ge9. The true best is 12 again, so a swap to a score-10 record labelled 12 prints an identical line and 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 60.5834 GH/s = total/wall (2007.7157 s): GPU 56.6897 + CPU 3.8938. 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..15 = 1,899,143,383,482,368 = GPU + CPU fresh candidates. Fraction of 2^48 is 6.747113; fraction of 2^52 is 0.421695; cumulative D8 1.002873.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z all recompute (k = 12: 8 vs 6.747, z 0.48; k = 11: 96 vs 107.95, z -1.15; k = 10: 1687 vs 1727.26, z -0.97).\n  - Cumulative GPU batches = 414,500.\n- **Window 15 own null model.** k = 9: 1846 vs 1770.01, z 1.81; k = 10: 109 vs 110.63, z -0.15; k = 11: 9 vs 6.91, z 0.79; k = 12: 1 vs 0.432, z 0.86.\n- **Cross-window additivity** (xwin.py, ALL_OK). Measured against the window-14 package (return #5020, search_results sha e1103568…):\n  - cumulative candidates, raw candidates, GPU batches, wall time (31,428.4329 s) and k = 8..14 observed counts (k = 8..12: 442,991 / 27,773 / 1,687 / 96 / 8) each equal the window-14 cumulative plus this window;\n  - the overlap stays 3,850,861,805,568.\n\n  So the checker's hard-coded prior sums (1,777,509,107,499,008 candidates, 388,000 batches, window 14 = 121,665,264,549,888) match the served predecessor package.\n- **Finding (repeat).** The headline cumulative rate is RAW, not fresh:\n  - \"60.5501 GH/s\" (the table row \"31,428.43 s / 60.5501 GH/s\") 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 1.8991e15 candidates.\n  - The fresh cumulative rate is 60.4276 GH/s. The package's own cumulative_fresh_effective_ghs field says 60.4276, 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 12, GPU, seed 42709154791425, batch 19410, submission #8196. I re-hashed the witness myself: md5 of the score-12 candidate shares its first 12 hex digits with the candidate, score 12.\n- **Submissions.** 109 unique ids and candidates, #8196–#8304 contiguous (score 12 at #8196, score 11 at #8197–#8204, score 10 at #8205–#8304; 102 GPU + 7 CPU), all live, verified and non-duplicate. Score and digest equal the recomputed md5. The submitted set equals the score ≥ 10 hit set. The 1,687 cumulative figure equals cumulative k ≥ 10 observed. The quoted id span #6616–#8304 holds 1,689 ids, so the span is not contiguous (it skips #6678 and #7751, as in windows 11 to 14).\n\n**Return text.** This return's report_md is current window-15 text and matches the package numbers. One mismatch remains: the return's files list names the C source job9787-selfmatch_nvtd_bcast.c, while the manifest path is job9944-…, with the same sha 66aba7d7…, unchanged since window 1.\n\n**Negative controls.** I ran 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy. 10 were detected, all by assertion exit. 10 passed silently (see controls). This is exactly the window-14 pattern; 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-14 package. One correction is needed: the cumulative rate should read 60.43 GH/s fresh. The checker should recompute best_hit from hits_ge9.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-21T00:28:28.527Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":148,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":29848},"output":29848,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":3021943,"cache_write":143086,"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_71e0b59737dffcbca4c7248f","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/5026 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: \"e92d822b56c1ef95c39aa40ad72f5c025544c667ba2690d0a1376b907603238e\", 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/5125/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"f108421a72e017a8cf0dc7bbfee7bf1585f15cc5b2fc9941d51c0a36bcc69dce","name":"job9944-check-stdout.txt","bytes":181},{"sha256":"c350e4f76943659f78b1bede5ec180df72d1a78ff9b66d86b8cb1a1225c00035","name":"job9944-check-audit.py","bytes":6651},{"sha256":"cf66e1207a3cee224861471a8664879a169be68e57ba716c7b26cffa44038405","name":"job9944-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4680},{"sha256":"ef845d850c0985d1d1df8c2e187e1325f3cdad23e17cc6199ca5a54d653b5ab6","name":"job9944-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6047},{"sha256":"2bac77ed73007640179fd8b3ca1a7fcd3e8758211eed365ea838d1c02bc9b33b","name":"job9944-check-ctl.py","bytes":8757},{"sha256":"aa6882e39b00134b580e16f4d4594ae5f5e55f3ee5678d1aa2d378842e63d303","name":"job9944-check-xwin.py","bytes":1372},{"sha256":"2e3ef04d342b222343a73e97befb8ffe20cb42b67555373e54ec2908a44556d5","name":"job9944-check-xwin.txt","bytes":456}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"6452b47ed69ef5e31f4402093789a87eebff6c2520bca9763c675a8c3c649cf3","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}