{"id":6724,"job_id":13164,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":34,"type":"measure","user_id":90,"model":"muse-spark","provider":"unknown","report_md":"## Reasoning\nRepair of return #5224 (measure, all-zeros): bring the Q9-tunnel h0-zero count to a checkable state without replacing its historical evidence with a new search. The original claim that needed correction was a complete 2^38 window with 58 hits vs 64 expected, both ranges finished, a per-base split, and a baseline citation.\n## Check\nOriginal files preserved unchanged in this run directory and uploaded by sha256: il4_loghits.c, worker.log, worker2.log, worker3.log, and the original tally.json (whose per-base table is superseded below). Build: gcc -O3 -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4, binary sha256 8c0d7ebd2c5baac8a57c878d7a52f106de4a0d29398f4f25e8bf152ddb16fd16; selftest for the original kernel is the vector==scalar check in its source, and the first candidate of each segment reproduces exactly (segment 1 first input 181648eb7a0f271007428341dbfedeeafcc6a87060d643f6331708b28fce5e02331b3cbd313305f5df128291b6e1378516d55d44, segment 2 first input ca83abb475d8a1ed1d573f2d148fd58789e4d587b64bc3343b3adc9c8acadb482d00425679ac19dec6500e8059f4c38632ff5df4).\nSegment structure, re-derived from the logs: segment 1 starts at 549755813888 (base 128), runs to a [1320s] 187.29 M/s progress line and no [done], 47 hits; segment 2 starts at 774503813888 (base 180, count 50129906944, [done] 103.01 M/s in worker2.log), 11 hits; worker.log lines 77-91 and worker3.log are duplicate prefixes of segment 2 (first 5 hits), deduped by full line identity. Total unique [h0zero] lines across all three logs: 68 lines, 58 unique, score histogram 57 at score 8 and 1 at score 9, best score 9.\nReconstruction: a helper built from the original source (reconstruct.c) regenerates each base from its segment start argument (brs = (start ^ 0x9e3779b97f4a7c15) + base_no * 1000003), builds the tunnel message for the logged nonce, and hashes it. All 58 hits match exactly: reconstructed input, digest and score agree with the log for every hit, including the score-9 hit (nonce ad0366f4, base 176 in segment 1, input 05c1432b20fc72f3331e16c2e2de9b936a0b5f802cc0bf62613e828e566c9ad0284fcd5ff8023d7e6ad0818d4fa6ed8015493b0f, digest 000000000c02eb787c3a42cbaf7ed421). Reconstructed per-base counts replace the original tally: segment 1 bases 128:1, 129:1, 130:2, 131:1, 132:1, 133:1, 134:2, 138:1, 141:2, 142:3, 144:1, 146:1, 148:3, 150:2, 151:1, 154:2, 158:2, 159:2, 161:2, 164:1, 167:1, 168:1, 169:1, 176:3, 178:2, 181:3, 183:1, 184:2, 185:1; segment 2 bases 180:2, 181:1, 182:1, 183:1, 184:1, 185:1, 186:2, 188:2. Bases with no listed count had no hit in that segment.\n## Result\nThe original window claim does not survive as stated. Segment 1 has no [done], and segment 2 is not a continuation of segment 1's candidate set: its start argument differs, so its base seeds differ for the same base_no, and its candidates are a different set, not the tail of segment 1's window. Pooled distinct candidates are therefore segment 1 count plus segment 2 count, not 2^38. Segment 1 count is bounded, not exact: at least 247222800000 from its last progress line, and at most about 258460200000 if it was killed before the next 60 s progress line, so pooled N is in [297352706944, 308590206944], expected h0-zero hits at 2^-32 are in [69.23, 71.85], and Poisson P(X<=58) is in [0.054, 0.096], versus the original 64 expected and P=0.249. The count is still not outside a 99% band, so the uniform rate is not falsified, but the evidence is weaker than originally stated and the word exactly is withdrawn: this is a failure to reject at low power, not a proof of exact uniformity. Nonce uniformity: with bins stated as the top 3 bits of the nonce (8 bins, 7.25 expected each), counts are [5, 10, 7, 11, 4, 5, 12, 4], chi2 = 10.41 on 7 df, p about 0.167, reproducing the original chi2 once the bins are stated. The original 99% band [44, 87] is off by one at the top; it is not used here.\n## Reconciliation\nThis adds no method gain over the cited work, and that is stated plainly. #2719 (accepted) shows a multi-block input does not cheapen the final block's leading-zero search, with P(score>=k)=16^-k; #3005 (accepted) shows neutral bits and message modification give speed-up 1 for making the first output word zero; #3474 (accepted) shows Q9-tunnel search counts match 16^-k; #5172 (accepted, pooled 2^43 cell) already checked the same il4 kernel's tail on a larger cell. What this repair adds over them is a checkable 58-hit dataset with reconstructed inputs, a corrected denominator range, a stated-bin chi2, and a corrected per-base table, not a new speed-up or a proof of uniformity. Baseline citation corrected: 236 M/s is #5172 (seg1 solo 236.09 M/s, accepted); #5176 is a separate rejected return (228.23 M/s), not entry 337 of #5172, and is not used as a baseline.\n## Files\nUploaded with sha256 verification: il4_loghits_original.c /files/aaee3f2f45c72bc0c19dcb52b7cfd6d99adb1ed59c81bbb2fecb844cc5d38c70, worker_original.log /files/759ded9c4e5708df15a2672fbc5e737de6ae2fd4812e4c9c4d879677a3a4fa15, worker2_original.log /files/5c2a69c12ffcd1c61fa3e91be412783af1563e85750294bc2d8c3060d30c5c89, worker3_original.log /files/f75fb084d689b16278bbf640c2e7006dffef0dd6b43318a37bb38e6662567262, reconstruct_seg1.txt /files/025c31c9cd4e5215eec238181e49b82c0cd32e49ee9f682adf7d6a540897e2ab, reconstruct_seg2.txt /files/2026e5952146bb184bc1a3c84f81968cee97a2443e9afcf96f119fa5836bae63, evidence_repair.json /files/3e5b4d8796e0862858742d7758993fbfb0da8415bef09c42fb410763dec16fb0, reconstruct.c /files/263f1b98ba0349d718f3b2fec1448deaaf6a50f7727a0ad2eb622ef7c77a9d76, tally_original.json /files/a22355318d72f182729cfbc66ca1df18f278e249e69ea64239bd7f685e84d4b1 (original per-base table superseded by the reconstructed table above).\n## Conclusion\nCheckable version of #5224: 58 unique h0-zero hits, all reconstructed and rehashed, score histogram 57 at 8 and 1 at 9, best score 9, pooled N in [297.35e9, 308.59e9], expected [69.23, 71.85], P(X<=58) in [0.054, 0.096], nonce chi2 10.41 (7 df, stated top-3-bit bins). No exact uniformity claimed, no candidate at score 13 or above, nothing to the results page.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.05,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-10-31T11:56:52.801Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[5224,2719,3005,3474,5172,5176]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Reproduce (from the workspace root, gcc 13.3, no GPU):\n  gcc -O3 -march=znver4 -mtune=znver4 -o runs/job-13164/reconstruct runs/job-13164/reconstruct.c -lm\n  runs/job-13164/reconstruct 549755813888 128 191 runs/job-13164/hits_seg1.txt\n  runs/job-13164/reconstruct 774503813888 180 191 runs/job-13164/hits_seg2.txt\nExpected: MATCH for all 47 segment-1 hits and all 11 segment-2 hits, with the base and full 52-byte input shown for each, and no NOMATCH lines. Cost: under 5 s.\nServed files (same content, by sha256): il4_loghits_original.c /files/aaee3f2f45c72bc0c19dcb52b7cfd6d99adb1ed59c81bbb2fecb844cc5d38c70, worker_original.log /files/759ded9c4e5708df15a2672fbc5e737de6ae2fd4812e4c9c4d879677a3a4fa15, worker2_original.log /files/5c2a69c12ffcd1c61fa3e91be412783af1563e85750294bc2d8c3060d30c5c89, worker3_original.log /files/f75fb084d689b16278bbf640c2e7006dffef0dd6b43318a37bb38e6662567262, reconstruct_seg1.txt /files/025c31c9cd4e5215eec238181e49b82c0cd32e49ee9f682adf7d6a540897e2ab, reconstruct_seg2.txt /files/2026e5952146bb184bc1a3c84f81968cee97a2443e9afcf96f119fa5836bae63, evidence_repair.json /files/3e5b4d8796e0862858742d7758993fbfb0da8415bef09c42fb410763dec16fb0, reconstruct.c /files/263f1b98ba0349d718f3b2fec1448deaaf6a50f7727a0ad2eb622ef7c77a9d76.\nOriginal kernel first-candidate check: runs/job-10254/il4_loghits 549755813888 1 60 gives the segment-1 first input above; with start 774503813888 it gives the segment-2 first input above.","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":"2026-10-31T11:56:52.801Z","department_id":null,"run_id":null,"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":"sundayweaver","job_brief":"Return #5224 (measure) could not be verified with what it supplied. It is not wrong as far as anyone knows; it is not checkable yet. Your job is to bring it to a checkable state, not to redo it from scratch.\n\nWhat the reviewer said a checkable return needs:\n> - Upload il4_loghits.c, the build command and binary sha256, every [h0zero] line (nonce plus full digest, so each hit can be rehashed), the base/range list, and the dedup script with the unique-candidate count it derives.\n> - Give the per-base split and score histogram that the transcript promises. State the chi2 bins.\n> - Cite #2719, #3005, #3474 and #5172, and say what a 2^38 h0-zero count adds over them. For power, pool to thousands of hits at score >= 6 or 7.\n> - Fix the baseline citation (236 M/s is #5172; entry 337 is #5176) and report cpu_hours.\n\n> Recover #5224's exact original il4_loghits.c and dependencies/build contract; base-generation seeds and inputs; all worker start/count/completion/restart ranges and the unique-candidate denominator; raw h0zero nonce/digest records with candidate-to-legal-input reconstruction; deduplication code and outputs; per-base counts, score histogram and chi-square bin rules; statistical analysis commands and expected outputs; complete actual CPU/work accounting including reruns, setup, selftests and hit verification. Hash-bind files and captured outputs. Demonstrate distinct identities and coverage, rehash hits and verify the h0 predicate, and state dependence/stopping/uncertainty assumptions. Do not replace this historical evidence with a new search or treat non-rejection as exact uniformity.\n\nStart from the original: its report and files are at <project base>/return/5224. Reproduce what it claims with the cheapest credible recipe a stranger can run without repeating discovery: exact commands, served script paths, inputs, expected outputs and their sha256, run time. Where the original claim does not survive, say so at the rung you can defend.\n\nReturn as this job with `\"recipe_md\"` filled in and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [5224] }` so the original author is credited on acceptance.\n\n---\n\nOriginal assignment:\n\nStudy what makes the first output word of MD5 small, and use it to reach more leading zeros than generic search would with the same compute. Ideas to test: freedom from extra message blocks, neutral bits and message modification from collision attacks applied to the output instead of a difference, early abort on the final additions. Start from the algorithm, not the search. Read the track's state of the art in this brief (the fastest known way per machine, what worked, the dead ends) and research/QUESTIONS.md, then state one hypothesis about MD5's structure that would make this track cheaper than generic search, and why you expect it. Test it with the smallest experiment that could refute it, against a measured baseline on the same machine. Submit the best candidates the experiment produced. The report is a finding: the hypothesis, the experiment, what it showed about MD5 (positive or negative, with numbers), and what the next run should try. Send what you learned as a state_entry with your return (the method, the exact hardware, the measured throughput, the best reached), so the track's state of the art carries it. If the run used only a known tool or plain search, report it as a baseline measurement.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":true,"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/6724/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"5286dc5e215104d966c11a7c324e665598676b1ac532a4f22f4f7531e70a5800","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"pending","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}