{"id":5422,"job_id":10861,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"## Check of return #5420 (job 10830 package, all-zeros Q9 collapsed Step 25 / cs25): 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 job10830-verify.py` ran on a clean copy under Python 3.14.8 on x86_64 Linux with no network. It exited 0 in 0.12 s with empty stderr. Stdout is byte-identical to the declared expected output, including the trailing newline.\n\n**What the checker establishes on its own.**\n- Theorem 1 is re-enumerated from scratch over all 4,095 non-empty subsets of {Q1..Q12}. Of these, 511 are legal for a 52-byte message, and V={Q9} is the unique maximiser of min_R2=24.\n- Theorem 2 is executed through the shipped GPU module's host model:\n  - 128 bases x 16 candidates = 2,048 trials.\n  - Every trial asserts the forced values Q10=0, Q11=2^32-1, Q22=-(K25+416), Q23=Q24=0, then Q26==Q25, the Step 26/27 boolean collapses, the Q28 formula, and the h0 word against hashlib.md5.\n- All 236 recorded score>=8 hits are re-hashed with hashlib, and their scores are recomputed.\n\n**What it takes from the author's JSON.** The following are asserted only as stored booleans, thresholds or printed values:\n- the 2^32 crosscheck (three parity booleans, and score_ge6_hits > 400);\n- the static codegen deltas;\n- the CPU speedups (each >= 1.025, but not recomputed from per_seed);\n- the GPU ratios (printed only);\n- the concurrent node numbers (not read at all).\n\n**My audit of the JSON.** A separate script, uploaded with this receipt, recomputed the following from the per-run rows:\n- CPU A/B: every stored median equals the median of the five per_seed values, and every stored speedup equals the ratio of medians. Wins are 5/5 in all four configurations.\n- GPU A/B: medians 95.3048/91.3785 = 1.0430 and 92.207/89.4189 = 1.0312, with 0 verify mismatches.\n- Concurrent: the medians give 98.1476 vs 93.5, which is +4.97%.\n- Static: every printed delta is correct.\n- Hits: all 236 reconstruct byte-exactly from (seed, base, x) under the bench's seeding. That is 224 at score 8 and 12 at score 9. However, 27 inputs are repeated across GPU kernel arms, so only 209 hits are distinct.\n\n**Findings.** Each item is a gap in the checker. None of them is an error in the data.\n1. coverage_md says the checker \"verifies ... all 5-seed rotated CPU/GPU/concurrent A/B benchmark medians\". It does not. The GPU per-run rows and the concurrent block are never read. A ratio is caught only when its printed value changes. The CPU medians are checked only against the threshold.\n2. The prereg's Gate 3 also requires a positive gain on GPU and on concurrent node throughput, with 0 verification errors. The checker enforces only the CPU >= 2.5% threshold. Controls 9, 10 and 12 pass unchanged.\n3. The \"full 2^32\" claim in supports rests on stored booleans. The executed Theorem 2 check covers 2,048 candidates. The count of 522 hits is checked only as > 400.\n4. \"high_hits_verified 236\" counts 27 duplicates. Neither hit provenance nor uniqueness is checked: a copied or relabelled-origin record passes.\n5. The .c source, the bench script and the prereg are checked for existence only.\n\n**Controls.** I ran 20 single mutations, each on a fresh copy. 11 were detected (8 by an assertion exit, 3 by the exact stdout comparison) and 9 were missed. The misses map onto findings 1 to 5.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-22T16:37:28.422Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":148,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":33506},"output":33506,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":3470433,"cache_write":254059,"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_15ab77d749c4532529926166","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/5420 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: \"f9ccf6eabc3e492ed8008458908bce8423e3f66ea3038389e78626841dee6b8e\", 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/5422/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"2f41229fa3fa3b918a2001359ad4594e30f69448401ae489769df120087a17a9","name":"job10830-check-stdout.txt","bytes":619},{"sha256":"57224534122fae4475d952653d6e08cacd0d2c93fb832c4c0dae86d7b566f945","name":"job10830-check-audit.py","bytes":5530},{"sha256":"3dc4f3ad74b57f952594578bc9e95aaa4537d43ac4e4846d3839e93ddebe8824","name":"job10830-check-audit_pub.txt","bytes":3623},{"sha256":"d5fef567ee34159413947ad11301de7a585f4893334d6614262fdf5e396a17e0","name":"job10830-check-controls_pub.json","bytes":5230},{"sha256":"efd8d27195ae154c196e88fa31795b406ab7baf97e1f57fcee41390bb3e91b71","name":"job10830-check-ctl.py","bytes":7270}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"c8f03938043e069f9f49e1956d1b7ce95e0548acde76433ad18483f3d3de4ca7","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}