{"id":5062,"job_id":9924,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"check","user_id":61,"model":"glm-5.3-flash","provider":"unknown","report_md":"# Check receipt report — return #5003 (greedy-word support characterization), job #9924\n\n**Type check (consolidate), lane formalize. Model GLM-5.3-Flash, effort xhigh. Second attempt of job #9924 (the first attempt completed the same check and was released unresolved after a publisher-toolchain limitation — see §7).**\n\n## 1. What was checked\n\nThe immutable package of return #5003 (fingerprint `c637ffddec9e1d0127bf69c007677c1718bd3a6ee784a3513043804c2b586c7d`): checker `check_du.py` (`046e4092c1084ce2c4a06eee6e9cd93756ee4ec39a0cf7294e55f2b3336f9015`, 336 lines) and target `check_records.json` (`663231a0d90ef0b87625df14dbda583e7795ca2fb713d273cc403c021681e47a`), command `python3 check_du.py`, expected `checks: 11 fails: []` / `RESULT: PASS`, exit 0. Claim under check: finite instances of (a) a finite set S={2≤m₁<…<m_k} is the support of the greedy word of some rational x∈(0,1) (necessarily x=Σ1/mᵢ) iff m_{i+1} ≥ mᵢ(mᵢ−1)+1, and (b) #4166's Theorem 1 holds verbatim for #4168's word under the dictionary m = n+2.\n## 2. Method\n\nClean directory rebuilt from the served manifest only; both files fetched by their SHA-256 from the server files endpoint, with server content-hash verification (`content_sha256_verified: true` on both). The checker source was read in full before execution. The rerun ran inside the reviewed isolation shape: `bwrap --unshare-all --die-with-parent --new-session --clearenv` with the host system tree mounted read-only, a minimal read-only input directory (the two package files), an empty writable output directory, no home/network/secrets, under the pinned cgroup runner (512 MiB, CPU 100%, 32 tasks). Negative controls ran in separate temporary copies (each a fresh directory with the pristine checker and a mutated target). The checker's own `--corrupt` in-memory control was also run. Originals preserved in `reads/` with provenance sidecars.\n\n## 3. Results\n\n- Pristine rerun: exit 0, 4.34 s wall (2.96 CPU-s, memory peak 14.1 MB), stdout ends `checks: 11 fails: []` and `RESULT: PASS`. All 11 checks `ok: true`.\n- **The stdout is byte-identical to the served receipt** `check_du.out` (sha `86a44cd8e4945fc93ed755ec0f32ed82ba493479f772aa04a6ea49047bc2cc3c`) and to the preserved first attempt's frozen stdout.\n- **The regenerated records are identical to the submitted target**: same 11 keys, parsed-equality on every record, zero diffs — verified by this check's own comparison (by the worker, not by the checker).\n- Details match the package's expected values: R9a subsets=4095 sparse=39 realised=39 (both failure lists empty); R9b sparse_sets_max_300=10693, failures=[], max_size=4; R4 targets=19900 violations=0 max_support_size=11; R5 targets=300 violations=0.\n- Coverage as declared: R4 exhaustive over all a/b with 2≤b≤200 (19,900 targets); R5 300 random targets b∈[10⁶,10¹²], seed_20261020; R9a every non-empty subset of {2..13} (4,095); R9b every Sylvester-sparse set with max element ≤300 (10,693); R6 four truncations — ladder k=3 at N=12, ladder k=4 at N=84, witness 30/103 at N=2000, random 83/199 at N=400 — checking every L from max(span, a_m+1) to N against the brute-force p(L); R7 corollary on ladders k=1..4; R8 discloses its bounded sub-sample (a_m ≤ 60, ≤12 rows per take-count, brute-forced) in its own record.\n- Comparison rule verified by source inspection: exact `Fraction` and integer arithmetic throughout; `greedy_support` takes m = ceil(1/r) by integer arithmetic; every decision is an exact equality; no tolerance anywhere; `realised()` requires residual exactly 0.\n\n## 4. Negative controls (the finding)\n\nThree file-level mutations, each in a separate temporary copy with the pristine checker:\n\n| control | detected | checker behaviour |\n|---|---|---|\n| corrupt a value in the target (R1 `got[0]`: 4→5) | **NO** | exit 0, stdout byte-identical to pristine, `RESULT: PASS` |\n| remove a record (delete R6 from the target) | **NO** | exit 0, stdout byte-identical to pristine, `RESULT: PASS` |\n| alter a certificate (R4 `ok`→false) | **NO** | exit 0, stdout byte-identical to pristine, `RESULT: PASS` |\n\nCause, verified by reading the source: **`check_du.py` never reads `check_records.json`** — the only `json` use is dumping its own in-memory records; there is no `open()` of the target anywhere. The checker regenerates everything from its own code and compares only against its internal formulas. The task protocol states the checker must consume the submitted target; this package does not. The package's mutation control (`--corrupt`) plants its four mutations in memory only; it catches all four of its own plants (M1/M2b/M3/M4 CAUGHT, M2a interior-move specificity control correctly not fired; `CONTROL RESULT: OK`, stdout sha `58694e53883dfce6aa902e61d4abfe3994740b97924dc6d4daaa9c4a202d0fa3`, byte-identical to the served `check_du.control.out` receipt), but it says nothing about the submitted target file.\n\n## 5. Verdict\n\n**Outcome: pass, with a material packaging finding.** The finite instances the package claims are established: the checker's exact recomputation covers the declared domains, uses exact arithmetic as assumed, and reproduces the submitted records bit-for-bit (verified by this check's own diff — by the worker, not by the checker). The material finding: the checker does not consume the submitted target, so the package's integrity does not extend to `check_records.json` — any tampering with the submitted records is invisible to the checker, and the mutation-control claim holds only in memory. Repair: have `check_du.py` load `check_records.json`, diff its records against it, and exit nonzero on any mismatch (or declare the target comparison as worker-side). Until then the package verifies the mathematics but not the integrity of its own target artifact.\n\n## 6. Environment and limits\n\nRerun under CPython 3.14.4, standard library only (`fractions`, `json`, `random`, `itertools`), single process, no network — compatible with the package's declared \"python3 3.11.2, standard library only\" (stdlib-only; version drift disclosed). Total observed accounting for this attempt: 12.295 CPU-s ≈ 0.00342 cpu_hours over five isolated runs. The package's R8 complexity claim is a disclosed sub-sample (its record says so); R6 checks only L ≥ max(span, a_m+1), which is #4166 Theorem 1's validity domain as served. The sample stays a sample: R5's 300 random targets and R4's b≤200 exhaustiveness support the stated finite scope only; the general theorem is proved on paper in #5003 section 4 and is not re-checked.\n\n## 7. Provenance note (second attempt)\n\nThis is the second attempt of job 9924. The first attempt (run preserved locally) completed this same check, obtained an independent science review endorsing the pass-with-finding verdict, and was then **released unresolved**: its publication was blocked by the pinned publication toolchain's privacy preflight, which fails closed on the author session log (quoted prose containing an English article is mined as a credential false positive; no approved context instrument clears both failure classes). This attempt re-executed the full check freshly under its own authority (package re-fetched by SHA with server hash verification; all five isolated runs above are this attempt's own executions) and re-verified the preserved first-attempt evidence by hash: pristine stdout, control stdout, and all three mutated-target shas match byte-for-byte. No result was submitted by the first attempt and no credit is claimed for it.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.00342,"hashes":{"check_du.observed.out":"1296d11b39e528a0c866d019749187814024a48774937ed83ca02f7b39006684","controls-evidence.json":"23ab9b40269f17ec1545363c7ba2c5f043a8f5176ae7bd3d6282909ef43a63b9","check_du.corrupt-control.out":"58694e53883dfce6aa902e61d4abfe3994740b97924dc6d4daaa9c4a202d0fa3"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-20T16:19:53.072Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["1296d11b39e528a0c866d019749187814024a48774937ed83ca02f7b39006684","58694e53883dfce6aa902e61d4abfe3994740b97924dc6d4daaa9c4a202d0fa3","23ab9b40269f17ec1545363c7ba2c5f043a8f5176ae7bd3d6282909ef43a63b9"],"handles":[],"returns":[5003],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":111914,"models":{"glm-5.3-flash":67009},"output":67009,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":6312826,"cache_write":0,"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":"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_6e20c257bfae5e31c149c91a","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":"malaiwah","job_brief":"Reconstruct the immutable package from GET <project base>/return/5003 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: \"c637ffddec9e1d0127bf69c007677c1718bd3a6ee784a3513043804c2b586c7d\", 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/5062/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"1296d11b39e528a0c866d019749187814024a48774937ed83ca02f7b39006684","name":"check_du.observed.out","bytes":4532},{"sha256":"58694e53883dfce6aa902e61d4abfe3994740b97924dc6d4daaa9c4a202d0fa3","name":"check_du.control.out","bytes":333},{"sha256":"23ab9b40269f17ec1545363c7ba2c5f043a8f5176ae7bd3d6282909ef43a63b9","name":"controls-evidence.json","bytes":3328}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"7619bda5ddda40e77dbc1c585f31b2ed15186394af742bc8cf23331d9e9afb47","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}