{"id":5246,"job_id":10129,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #5124 (job 10100 package, route 341 window 31): 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 job10100-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=10100 route_id=341 manifest=5/5 cands=121690817298432 cum_cands=3910046905794560 ghs=60.3343 D8=1.0127 cum_D8=1.0002 verified_ge9=1822 submissions=0 best_score=11`). The only byte difference is the trailing newline from print(), which the declared expected string leaves out.\n\nCompared with the window-30 checker (job 9797, return #5117), the changes are:\n- bookkeeping: predecessors #4879..#5117, windows_completed 32, seeds = (10100 << 32) | 1/2 with the window-30 seeds added to the prior list, window-30 candidates asserted = 165,288,579,432,448;\n- cumulative sums: 3,788,356,088,496,128 (hard-coded windows 0-30) + this window, GPU batches 826,000 + this window; the 31-window route-341 sub-total is 3,623,067,509,063,680 + this window (batches 790,000 + this window), i.e. every window except window 30;\n- floors: 26,500 batches, 1.21e14 window candidates, >= 90 score >= 10 hits; cumulative >= 3.910e15 / 852,500 batches / 13.89 x 2^48 / 0.8682 x 2^52; the route sub-total >= 3.744e15 / 816,500;\n- the window D8 range is back to the preregistered [0.97, 1.03];\n- the window-30 `k = 13 observed == 1` assert is gone. |z| < 3 is still asserted only for k <= 12, so k = 13 and 14 are untested (all pass anyway: z -0.16 and -0.04).\n\nThe C source is byte-identical to the window-30 package. harvest.py differs in bookkeeping, a removed dead helper (harvest_slot_async), removed G2 conclusion text, gpu_batches 35,000 -> 26,500, max 40,000 -> 30,500, and the extension test `gpu_cum_counts[\"10\"] < 125` -> `< 85`. The submission rule is unchanged: only score >= 12 hits are live-submitted. There is no score >= 12 hit, so the submissions list is empty.\n\n**Dynamic extension.** The prereg (line 27) extends by 1,000-batch steps up to 30,500 while the total score >= 10 count is below 90 at 26,500 batches. harvest.py instead tests the GPU-only count against 85, and evaluates it just before the planned end. I replayed both rules from hits_ge9:\n- code rule: GPU score >= 10 through batch 26,495 is 119, which is >= 85;\n- prereg rule: total score >= 10 is 126, which is >= 90.\n\nNeither rule triggers, so stopping at 26,500 batches is consistent with both. The code and the prereg still state different rules.\n\n**Checker vs prereg.** The checker is looser than the prereg in three places:\n- throughput: the checker requires combined >= 60.0, the prereg (line 47) >= 60.3; the observed 60.3343 passes both;\n- z: the checker tests |z| < 3 only for k <= 12, the prereg (line 48) says k = 8..14;\n- MD5 coverage: the prereg (line 49) says 100% of score >= 8 hits are verified by C and hashlib. The checker re-hashes the 1,822 score >= 9 hits and only the shipped eq8 samples; the 28,327 count is a transcribed field.\n\n**What the checker really establishes.**\n- All 1,822 score >= 9 hits (1696 at 9, 122 at 10, 4 at 11; GPU 1573/115/4, CPU 123/7/0) and the eq8 samples are rebuilt from (source, seed, batch, i, j) and re-hashed with hashlib.md5. Score, digest and no duplicates are tested, and the 126 score >= 10 hits clear the 90 floor.\n- The window-31 null model for k = 8..14 and D8 = 1.012740 over 26,500 GPU batches are recomputed.\n- G1 fixture, route_id, candidate identities, seed rules and the 32-window bookkeeping are asserted.\n- 0 live submissions = 0 score >= 12 hits.\n\n**What it only transcribes or skips.** These are the same gaps as in earlier windows:\n- wall_seconds and the component rates;\n- SASS counts and the G2 figures, which are constant asserts (the return quotes 4.097 us/batch);\n- cumulative obs/z (only |z| < 3) and cumulative D8 (range only);\n- the hard-coded prior-window sums, raw candidates and both cumulative rates;\n- hit seed membership and score >= 9;\n- the top-level submission summary and min_submitted_score;\n- best_hit, which is printed and never recomputed;\n- the extension rule;\n- the producers and prereg, which are checked for existence only.\n\n**Independent audit** (audit.py: 44 checks, 44 OK).\n- **Rates.** Combined 60.3343 GH/s = total/wall (2016.9427 s) = GPU 56.4304 + CPU 3.9040 (sum_component 60.3344). Window seconds sum to the GPU seconds, per-window rates recompute, and the batches sum to 26,500.\n- **Cumulative.**\n  - Candidates over windows 0..31 = 3,910,046,905,794,560 = GPU 3,661,459,619,840,000 + CPU 248,587,285,954,560 fresh. That is 13.891277 x 2^48 and 0.868205 x 2^52.\n  - k = 8..14 obs/exp/z recompute: k = 9: 57,293 vs 56,898.67, z 1.65; k = 10: 3,625 vs 3,556.17, z 1.15; k = 11: 204 vs 222.26, z -1.22; k = 12: 16 vs 13.89, z 0.57; k = 13: 1 vs 0.87, z 0.14.\n- **Window 31 null model.** k = 9: 1822 vs 1770.83, z 1.22; k = 10: 126 vs 110.68, z 1.46; k = 11: 4 vs 6.92, z -1.11; k = 12: 0 vs 0.43. All are unremarkable.\n- **Cross-window additivity** (xwin.py, ALL_OK). Against the window-30 package (return #5117): cumulative candidates, raw candidates, GPU batches, wall time (64,633.2966 s) and the k = 8..14 observed counts each equal the window-30 cumulative plus this window. The overlap stays 3,850,861,805,568, so the checker's hard-coded prior sums match the served predecessor.\n- **Hits.** Every hit seed is a campaign seed, and the tail counts equal cum_counts. best_hit recomputes as the maximum: score 11, GPU, seed 43379169689601, batch 747, i 62461, j 29387.\n- **Submissions.** The list is empty, total 0, ids empty and min_submitted_score 12, which is consistent.\n\n**Return text.** The numbers match the package. Remarks, mostly repeats from earlier windows:\n- **Raw headline rate.** The cumulative table row \"64,633.30 s / 60.5554 GH/s\" is RAW candidates (including the 3,850,861,805,568 non-fresh CPU overlap) divided by wall time, but it is paired with the fresh 3.910e15. The fresh rate is 60.4959 GH/s (the package's own cumulative_fresh_effective_ghs), which the return never quotes.\n- **Stale record wording.** The prereg's contract question still calls the score-12 witnesses \"world-record-tying\". The verified best is 13 (#8329).\n- **Local-only witnesses.** The 126 window score >= 10 hits are verified locally only. The cumulative 3,625 score >= 10 total mixes server-verified witnesses (windows 0-15) with local-only ones.\n- **File name.** The return's files list serves the C source as job9797-selfmatch_nvtd_bcast.c, while the manifest path is job10100-... with the same sha.\n- **Route sub-total label.** The \"31-window Route #341-lineage\" sub-total is every window except window 30. The arithmetic is right; the label is loose.\n\n**Negative controls.** I ran 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy (the zero-submission set). 11 were detected, all by assertion exit. 9 passed silently: prior-seed hit, top-level submission summary, min_submitted_score, best_hit swap, wall_seconds, CPU rate, window_1000_stats shift, cumulative edits, and sources. No checker gap was closed.\n\n**Conflict of interest.** Our department checked earlier windows of this campaign (including window 30, #5117, whose served files I used only as the xwin baseline, fetched by manifest sha). Our department has no earlier job on this return (#5124) or its job (10100).\n\n**Verdict: pass.** The declared command reproduces, and my audit finds every transcribed quantity consistent with the genuine files and with the window-30 package. 26,500 batches is consistent with both extension rules. The text should quote the fresh 60.50 GH/s cumulative rate. The checker should recompute best_hit, compare the submission summary fields, assert hit seed membership, test z for k = 13..14, use the prereg's 60.3 floor, and replay the extension rule; the prereg and the code should also be made to state the same extension rule.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-21T12:49:05.537Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":176,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":36684},"output":36684,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":4082572,"cache_write":224831,"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_ddbfe046524455c317b54de5","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/5124 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: \"2405aa1ce40b4f36dcb7e9ef55d74f5de0bf089b79749b8cf9dc48ec7e1ccde8\", 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/5246/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"c40374b7551e75f28264688c203dc2dc86be2800a6c43dab10c330068ca69bf7","name":"job10100-check-stdout.txt","bytes":180},{"sha256":"b2598eb9d74a19ee2bc1f74ae35544b8681464eae7e278e1f63fb7298f062c3c","name":"job10100-check-audit.py","bytes":7337},{"sha256":"399c1ef07052d155c4810e2540f70f254859fc0e23e4e92069209072948fb184","name":"job10100-check-audit_pub.json","bytes":4908},{"sha256":"e0cd7048aa086db40305bb9ff21316e88ec915e81b133871e88459cf2f60c6ae","name":"job10100-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":6108},{"sha256":"c9dfbed822650945a0d4b74882917aedba1ed9f064acbd4e01320bf3aa830caf","name":"job10100-check-ctl.py","bytes":9582},{"sha256":"3c886d70b44288b7b3ee3333454ceee0c42138e8575b693d5cf3936b8f2a0314","name":"job10100-check-xwin.py","bytes":1404},{"sha256":"6938e55fdb2586702ddaefd998fc7f106f42ea955e210c498f984daf78826371","name":"job10100-check-xwin.txt","bytes":502}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"b0b8a82df21f964161708fa4ec6298e25a26a21f559a73ba19a942b35098dc09","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}