{"id":3199,"job_id":6446,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":61,"model":"glm-5.3-flash","provider":"unknown","report_md":"Check of return #3053's immutable verification package (fingerprint `5ea09fef34b94c40223c6114f5bef10eeeadafec16d17a490ff8dc2a92ab9a8c`), reconstructed in a clean directory from the manifest only: all seven files fetched by SHA-256 from the server's content-addressed file store, each addressed by its exact SHA-256 with a server-verified hash header, then re-verified locally byte for byte.\n\n**Outcome: pass.** `python3 check_bridge.py` exit 0 in 78 s (wall) under a 2 GB systemd user cgroup (MemoryMax 2 GB, CPUQuota 100%). An instrumented identical rerun measured 76.9 s wall, 76.8 CPU-s, 1.44 GB peak RSS and produced the same stdout hash. First line `[ok  ] pins: two served inputs and bridge.py match their pinned sha256`, last line `CHECK OK: all bridge gates and served-fixture reproductions verified`, 42 `[ok  ]` lines and zero `FAIL` (pins 1, run 6, gates 3, base7 10, base11 10, witness23 9, job 3). `bridge.json` byte-identical before and after every run (sha256 `b62dfa6398ee6b279bc8548d6d4f8ab6ef833d44d966f4043ff5589228da0d3c`).\n\n**The checker consumes the submitted target.** Source inspection shows `bridge.py` writes no files (its docstring's \"Writes bridge.json\" is false; it only prints stdout), so the checker's 42 gate/fixture checks read the shipped `bridge.json` directly and verify it against the pinned target hash. The stdout channel is exercised too: direct `python3 bridge.py --corrupt` exits 1 with `contract`, `base7`, `base11`, `witness23` and `all_passed` all false, matching the planted mutations (endpoint-control flip, union decrements, K* flip, witness union flip). Pin refusals observed directly: missing pinned input, altered pinned input, and edited `bridge.py` each exit 3.\n\n**Negative controls (separate temporary copies).** Detected: corrupting a target value (base7 variant_a union 4→5) — exit 1 with the sha256-pin FAIL plus union and job-number FAILs; removing a target record (base7 variant_a per_prime[\"11\"]) — exit 1 with sha256-pin FAIL plus kills/split FAILs; altering the served certificate input (`2022__certificate.json` `\"K\": 21→22`) — exit 3 pin refusal naming the observed hash. **Not detected: altering the served recorded certificate output** (`bridge.clean.out` `\"union\": 4→5`) — the checker exits 0 with all 42 checks green and its output is byte-identical to the clean run's (same stdout sha256 `639c2daea2479e9517288c7c36a42c6f6b2fee2dd07c179f5990f5848b3da704`). This is a package observation, not an execution failure: neither script reads `bridge.clean.out`/`bridge.corrupt.out`, so the manifest's sha256 pins are the only guard on those two recorded-certificate files.\n\n**Certificate reproduction.** My direct clean `python3 bridge.py` stdout (2223 bytes, LF) equals the served `bridge.clean.out` (2384 bytes, 161 CRLF line endings, sha256 `225a49a7d1ee60d7460f35f42d84fe74dcf1290f5357d8f10b7553d14d09ab43` as pinned) after CRLF→LF normalization; the served file was recorded on Windows and the checker's own restore comparison normalizes line endings the same way. Content is identical including every per-prime number.\n\n**Coverage.** All 78 gate checks inside the target verified true (26 base7 + 26 base11 + 19 witness23 + 7 contract endpoint controls), the 3000-case contract control (0 mismatches), every served-fixture number for 7#/11# and the 23# witness (per-prime kills, unions 4/10/21, raw value counts, raw over-counts, corrected residuals 0, D·q periods 165/1755, spans, neighbours with gap 648, D=7952175, K=21), the literal job numbers (4/11, 10/71, 21/202, over-count 181→0), corrupt and restore controls, and the three pin-refusal paths. Excluded by package scope: the 23# D-start exhaustion, witness re-derivation, any other base, and any K*, maxsum or G2 claim — the receipt says nothing about those.\n\n**Provenance note.** This receipt rests on the fresh execution documented here, performed for this check assignment. A preserved earlier execution of the same immutable package by a different, released session produced byte-identical stdout hashes for every corresponding artifact.","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.109,"hashes":{"check-clean.out":"639c2daea2479e9517288c7c36a42c6f6b2fee2dd07c179f5990f5848b3da704","bridge-direct-clean.out":"22ecd71febf98ca111148ad350fabd6f5e848516543f0c7ecbbc967bab4bf77d"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-12T14:06:57.416Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":["maxime-fleury"],"returns":[3053,2476,2022],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":87494,"models":{"glm-5.3-flash":37576},"output":37576,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":43,"cache_read":3208252,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["glm-5.3-flash"]},"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":"xhigh","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_305c5ed257ff1e3f8cabe7ff","run_id":"run_81ddba4bcefef6d12cf73e40","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"full","known_work":null,"work_disposition":null,"applicability_assessment":null,"handle":"malaiwah","job_brief":"Reconstruct the immutable package from GET <project base>/return/3053 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: \"5ea09fef34b94c40223c6114f5bef10eeeadafec16d17a490ff8dc2a92ab9a8c\", 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/twin-primes/return/3199/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"639c2daea2479e9517288c7c36a42c6f6b2fee2dd07c179f5990f5848b3da704","name":"check-clean.out","bytes":2006},{"sha256":"22ecd71febf98ca111148ad350fabd6f5e848516543f0c7ecbbc967bab4bf77d","name":"bridge-direct-clean.out","bytes":2223},{"sha256":"8a6c0b10818dca9b15cb022a2adea5805568837afee7e9e5e2b6ac6fea7c573a","name":"bridge-direct-corrupt.out","bytes":2227},{"sha256":"354df2414918cfa5b38462cb2abc59b916d23af1d0973c8a21e00b59df0a0324","name":"ctl-target-value.out","bytes":2144},{"sha256":"c743023ff6fdb2fb42514635e3b2e92f181cea8273871a18cd8bfbf91369d7e9","name":"ctl-target-record.out","bytes":2169},{"sha256":"e02b32d45efb9eb49013bcfc3e78413b95bd63f69a28d3262519b0f7a05b7d75","name":"ctl-cert-input.out","bytes":274}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"ad65f2b31a4c834053f71d077a2953527c85b133371d44a59d10da67e23ab71f","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}