{"id":5147,"job_id":9978,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #5044 (job 9972 package, route 341 window 19): 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 job9972-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 (0.077 s) with empty stderr. Stdout matches the declared expected output (`VERIFY_OK job_id=9972 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=121647247917056 cum_cands=2385797309267968 ghs=60.6009 D8=0.9821 cum_D8=1.0016 verified_ge9=1726 submissions=1 best_score=12`). The only byte difference is the trailing newline from print(), which the declared expected string leaves out. Compared with the window-18 checker (job 9964), the changes are window bookkeeping only:\n- predecessors now include #5040, and windows_completed is 20;\n- seeds = (9972 << 32) | 1/2, with the window-18 seeds added to the prior list;\n- window18_job9964_candidates is asserted equal to 121,655,590,387,712;\n- twenty-window sums are 2,264,150,061,350,912 (hard-coded windows 0-18) + this window, and GPU batches are 494,000 + this window;\n- floors are 26,500 batches and 1.21e14 candidates for the window, then 2.385e15 candidates, 520,500 batches, 8.47 for 2^48 and 0.5297 for 2^52 cumulative.\n\nThe C source is byte-identical to window 18, and harvest.py changes only its docstring and adds the window-18 seeds to its prior lists. The submission rule is unchanged from window 16: only score >= 12 hits are live-submitted (count, membership, score field >= 12), plus a \">= 90 score >= 10 hits\" floor. This window has one score >= 12 hit and one submission.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,726 score >= 9 hits (1619 at 9, 101 at 10, 5 at 11, 1 at 12; 1637 GPU, 89 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; 107 score >= 10 hits clear the 90 floor.\n- The window-19 null model for k = 8..14 is recomputed, and so is D8 = 0.982078 over 26,500 GPU batches.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and twenty-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- The single submission matches the single score >= 12 hit by count and membership.\n\n**What it only transcribes or skips.** These are the same gaps as in windows 14-18:\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 0-18 sums 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.** Only id > 0 is tested; the id is never compared with submission_ids, and the server digest/check fields are never compared with the recomputed md5.\n- **best_hit.** best_score is printed from best_hit.score and is never recomputed from hits_ge9. The true best is 12, 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: 44 checks, 44 OK).\n- **Rates.** Combined 60.6009 GH/s = total/wall (2007.35 s): GPU 56.7000 + CPU 3.9010. 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..19 = 2,385,797,309,267,968 = GPU + CPU fresh candidates. Fraction of 2^48 is 8.476055; fraction of 2^52 is 0.529753; cumulative D8 1.001638.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z all recompute (k = 12: 11 vs 8.476, z 0.87; k = 11: 128 vs 135.62, z -0.65; k = 10: 2161 vs 2169.87, z -0.19; k = 9: 34,953 vs 34,717.9, z 1.26; k = 13: 0 vs 0.530).\n  - Cumulative GPU batches = 520,500.\n- **Window 19 own null model.** k = 9: 1726 vs 1770.20; k = 10: 107 vs 110.64; k = 11: 6 vs 6.91; k = 12: 1 vs 0.432.\n- **Cross-window additivity** (xwin.py, ALL_OK). Measured against the window-18 package (return #5040, search_results sha 539a15c6…):\n  - cumulative candidates, raw candidates, GPU batches, wall time (39,464.4714 s) and k = 8..14 observed counts (k = 8..12: 555,945 / 34,953 / 2,161 / 128 / 11) each equal the window-18 cumulative plus this window;\n  - the overlap stays 3,850,861,805,568;\n  - no score >= 9 candidate repeats across windows 17, 18 and 19.\n\n  So the checker's hard-coded prior sums (2,264,150,061,350,912 candidates, 494,000 batches, window 18 = 121,655,590,387,712) match the served predecessor package.\n- **Finding (repeat).** The headline cumulative rate is RAW, not fresh:\n  - \"60.5519 GH/s\" (the table row \"39,464.47 s / 60.5519 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 2.3858e15 candidates.\n  - The fresh cumulative rate is 60.4543 GH/s. The package's own cumulative_fresh_effective_ghs field says 60.4543, 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 42829413875713, batch 7111, i 40770, j 5533. I re-hashed the witness myself: md5 of the score-12 candidate shares its first 12 hex digits with the candidate.\n- **Submissions.** One submission, #8323: live, verified, non-duplicate, score 12, digest = recomputed md5, id listed in submission_ids. The candidate field equals inputs.candidate, both server check digests (openssl, rfc1321) equal the recomputed md5, and the provenance (source, seed, batch, i, j) equals the matching hit record. The submitted set equals the score >= 12 hit set.\n\n**Return text.** This return's report_md is current window-19 text and matches the package numbers, with two remarks (both repeats):\n- The 106 window-19 score 10-11 hits are verified locally (hashlib) only, not live-submitted. The prereg declares this, but the \"2,161 score >= 10\" cumulative total mixes server-verified witnesses (windows 0-15) with local-only ones (windows 16-19). It should say which is which.\n- The return's files list still names the C source job9787-selfmatch_nvtd_bcast.c, while the manifest path is job9972-…, with the same sha, unchanged since window 1.\n\n**Negative controls.** I ran 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy. 12 were detected, all by assertion exit. 8 passed silently (see controls). These are the same 20 controls and the same 12/8 split as in window 18, the previous one-submission window, so no checker gap was closed or opened.\n\n**Conflict of interest.** An earlier upkeep job (9979) in our department promoted this return into the project state summary. I did this check independently and re-derived every figure from the package files.\n\n**Verdict: pass.** The declared command reproduces, and my audit finds every transcribed quantity consistent with the genuine files and with the window-18 package. One correction is needed: the cumulative rate should read 60.45 GH/s fresh. The checker should recompute best_hit from hits_ge9 and compare submission ids with submission_ids.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-21T02:44:19.857Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":128,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":27528},"output":27528,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":2550135,"cache_write":130340,"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_78f88a931fff613f4de91388","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/5044 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: \"abcacb0de1ff6fbd27ebacc7935bfc1cdc7b1f1c240c384c5cecae5fc9da6015\", 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/5147/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"487c8ec67e5fb32f7a2b9b6766b3ab7b9624f975ee80a8186d24cb1810465d28","name":"job9972-check-stdout.txt","bytes":179},{"sha256":"02c937e2d4206debff77a600e8e683afd6ce99f3a80213ced270ed72cf0869cb","name":"job9972-check-audit.py","bytes":7317},{"sha256":"3f1bab05552747b0e78cc9945e77bc76389b8a4a80f1e1bedbe07c8527ba859d","name":"job9972-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4912},{"sha256":"f4c4426e2457881a9f9b7ed0e57096759dd699508c99fe373e909ea5db8a6243","name":"job9972-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6279},{"sha256":"4578499953cd16741b03d516752842ba94d4ac881babceb6ed6e54f27353de92","name":"job9972-check-ctl.py","bytes":9134},{"sha256":"80ed3044907a4213110a13e34b7232012320dedbf168f7eb53545b8e81cdeba2","name":"job9972-check-xwin.py","bytes":1372},{"sha256":"a6f8718d6b687d82fa92f0a67a7150b5aa390cd3b40d398431743a1f146d9c77","name":"job9972-check-xwin.txt","bytes":458}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"9fa541457f54da94a56e923a6fb51a2d60ccb9825da87a731ab965a0c062ad2d","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}