Independent verification (no κ): PR3633's T488 journal, fixed-inventory ceiling and endpoint reproduce; inherited owner-audit controls cannot fail

research/t488-independent-audit/TASK.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+ "schema_version": 1,
+ "task_id": "independent-moment",
+ "priority_revision": 6,
+ "base_commit": "20ecf2891d80b5acf18d980b2164fb44ea7faa90",
+ "scope_key": "pr3633-t488-independent-audit",
+ "original_card": {
+  "id": "independent-moment",
+  "question": "Does one changed supplier or assembly claim lack a source-bound independent check of a specific new implication?",
+  "starting_points": [
+   "certificates/selected-result.json",
+   "research/rank7-joint-endframes/README.md",
+   "docs/research/research-family-status.md"
+  ],
+  "methods": [
+   "Independently reconstruct a coordinated frame/circuit change and its single-change control, then derive the complete rank and physical ledger.",
+   "Implement certified moment inequalities through a different exact enclosure method."
+  ],
+  "acceptance_gate": "Demonstrate independence, source binding, positive cases and semantic failure controls. Name the existing checks and the missing coverage. More digits or another equivalent evaluation of an unchanged root is not by itself new verification coverage.",
+  "first_step": {
+   "command": [
+    "python3",
+    "-B",
+    "scripts/research_baseline.py"
+   ],
+   "expected": "PASS_RESEARCH_BASELINE_BINDINGS_ONLY",
+   "inspect": "Read #2979 joint rank-7 end-frame proposal and the revision-6 evidence status. Its claimed kappa is not selected. Compare coordinated changes with the losing single-change controls and locate the complete physical ledger; an aggregate moment alone does not validate the mechanism.",
+   "scope": "Positive control / source-bound orientation only; this is not a new construction or full cold replay."
+  },
+  "first_experiment": "Prioritize a bounded independent audit of #2979: reconstruct one joint group and its single-lowering control, check the declared frames/chronology, then trace changed children, idle widths and cleanup buffers into the complete invoice and both supplier caps. Choose one still-missing implication after checking existing audits. Stop with exact unresolved dependencies if full admission exceeds the session; do not launch a new lowering census on an unvalidated premise or substitute extra root digits for mechanism checking.",
+  "bottleneck_link": "Independent pricing prevents unsupported frontier claims and can reveal genuine accounting slack.",
+  "allowed_variations": [
+   "Reconstruct either a source ledger or a numeric enclosure with a different method."
+  ],
+  "scope_change_triggers": [
+   "Importing the primary function and calling its output independent verification.",
+   "Promoting #2979 from merged source archive to validated supplier solely from author PASS receipts or aggregate pricing."
+  ],
+  "overlap_terms": [
+   "independent moment",
+   "rank histogram",
+   "exact enclosure",
+   "2979",
+   "rank7 joint endframes",
+   "paired extraction",
+   "joint lowering"
+  ]
+ },
+ "scope_status": "refined",
+ "actual_scope": "Independent verification of open PR #3633 (hexapode, head 72c268f113368ea0387d188225e3f81ba6d6ef73): the T488 allocation of Ross Richardson's staged 644/660 supplier (PR #3605), its complete invoice, its claimed attainment of the fixed-inventory packing ceiling (independently bounded by PR #3630) and its endpoint, with standard-library code that imports or executes nothing of PR3633, PR3630 or PR3605: the two supplier words through this contributor's word lineage; all 1,791,936 literal owner roles (windows derived two ways from the frozen template, families, capacities, chronological prefixes, the active-local-pair exclusion, the complete invoice, aggregate realisation, stock); an own fixed-inventory LP (a first draft mirrored PR3633's enumeration/column code and was rewritten after review) with a rigorous dual certificate, attainment and cross-checks of both published certificates; the endpoint in two rational enclosures with exact gains; PR #3653's endpoint on the same journal; and a static proof that the five reject() controls kept in PR3633's adapted owner auditor (and 14 other copies) cannot fail.",
+ "scope_change_reason": "The card names #2979's coordinated lowering as its first example; the line has since moved to the staged 644/660 supplier, whose newest conditional claim (PR #3633, 20 minutes old at selection) had no independent check, and Clear1nsight's handoff (discussion 1166, comment 19016699) listed an arithmetic/release audit of this line as open. The audit follows the card's methods (independent reconstruction of the complete ledger, a different exact enclosure method) on that claim.",
+ "declared_milestone": "audit",
+ "budget_minutes": 360,
+ "stop_rule": "Stop after the independent checks and their controls pass or a defect is found; no new allocation search, no native operator proof, no outer-transfer re-derivation.",
+ "outcome": "completed",
+ "started_utc": "2026-10-18T12:00:00Z",
+ "author": "Sagar Thakrar (thakrarsagar)",
+ "ai_assistance": "Substantial AI assistance (Claude Code, Anthropic): two scopes built by subagents, adversarial review rounds by subagents; no independent human review is claimed.",
+ "existing_checks_consulted": [
+  "PR3633's own checks: owners/independent_literal.py (adapted from PR3605's auditor, adding artifact/source/native-pin, FILL-payload and exact ORDER/DISPATCH gates; its five controls unchanged), ceiling/verify_ceiling.py, seven admission stages run by the author with reused native caches; fresh end-to-end portable CLI not run (author disclosure).",
+  "PR3630 (RossRichardson): independent 2,551-pattern dual and all-T fixed-inventory ceiling; states that PR3624's certificate/invoice match its premises but did not rerun its admission.",
+  "PR3638 (zxv, concurrent, 11:58 UTC): a different T360 allocation tying the same endpoint, with its own dual replay; not a check of PR3633's journal.",
+  "PR3653 (rohanarun; ready for review since 13:46 UTC): reuses PR3633's literal T488 allocation with roger-sato's PR3642 retimed words.",
+  "Clear1nsight's three-route handoff in discussion 1166 (comment 19016699): arithmetic/release audit of this line open; PR3624 read only.",
+  "PR3642 (roger-sato): the retimed T530 words that PR3653 composes with PR3633's journal; its owner audit carries the same five controls.",
+  "PR3680 (jwr404), PR3681 (roger-sato, full replay of PR3605's wrapper), PR3682 (zxv, retimed releases at T360): later work on the line, none an independent check of PR3633's journal or ceiling.",
+  "PR3687 (this account's parallel session, 14:46 UTC): an independent exact audit of PR3605's staged words with the PR3133 control, in a different code lineage; agrees with scope C1 on the width inventory and local bill.",
+  "PR3677 (jwr404): the retimed local bill keeps rank mass 5,135 and lowers the moment (used by the PR3653 downstream check).",
+  "PR3693 (roger-sato, 15:33 UTC): audits the retimed (PR3642/PR3653) and delayed (PR3682) words, reusing PR3687's interpreter; covers the retimed words' exactness that this package does not check."
+ ],
+ "open_questions": [
+  {
+   "question": "Does a width change, or a local-bill change beyond PR3642's retiming, raise the ceiling above 0.001730418899766071163804 (the retimed ceiling certified here for PR3633's allocation)?",
+   "why_it_matters": "Within scope A's fixed model (these widths and local bill, the template's bin counts/capacities, nine-call normalisation, live 896T) packing is closed for every T: PR3633 attains the ceiling (checked here) and PR3638 reports the same endpoint. PR3653 shows a local-bill change with unchanged widths moves the endpoint, with PR3633's allocation at the re-certified ceiling.",
+   "first_step": "Reuse audit_ceiling.py's LP to price single-helper width changes (an inventory change) and local-bill changes before building any word.",
+   "blocked_by": "Any width change needs a new exact supplier word (as PR3605 built for helpers 644/660)."
+  },
+  {
+   "question": "Can the five owner-audit controls (15 copies across PR3605, PR3624, PR3626, PR3630, PR3633, PR3638, PR3642, PR3653) be made to test their gates?",
+   "why_it_matters": "Finding 1: the five reject() controls are tautologies, so the receipts carry no evidence that the gates can fail.",
+   "first_step": "Factor the gates into a check() function and rerun it on each mutated journal requiring the expected message (as the main-lineage checker does), or reuse audit_owners.controls.",
+   "blocked_by": "Nothing."
+  },
+  {
+   "question": "Can the native file pins be made platform-independent?",
+   "why_it_matters": "Finding 2: rebuilt native files differ from the pinned files only in the gzip OS byte, so the one file-hash gate (independent_literal.py native_canonical) rejects a correct rebuild on another platform.",
+   "first_step": "Pin decompressed payload sha256 of CANONICAL-WORD (and FULL-WORD, LOCAL-PROGRAMS) in independent_literal.py's native_canonical and the receipts; PR3605's staged_pair.py already restores the OS byte for supplier words and PR3633 pins FILL by payload.",
+   "blocked_by": "Nothing."
+  },
+  {
+   "question": "Does PR3633's complete fresh end-to-end replay (replay.py) pass on a machine with enough memory?",
+   "why_it_matters": "The author disclosed it as not run; here it passed fresh native, owners, parent-lift, rebind and discovery bind, then the discovery emit stage was killed by the OOM killer (> 5.1 GB) on a 7.9 GB machine.",
+   "first_step": "Rerun replay.py with >= 12 GB RAM or swap; roger-sato's PR3681 reports a full PR3605-wrapper replay that may show a working configuration.",
+   "blocked_by": "Memory on this machine."
+  }
+ ],
+ "family_expansion_decision": "None proposed. The audit admits nothing. It reports no correctness defect in PR3633's finite claims in the checked scope; shows that within the fixed packing model (the staged widths and local bill, bin counts/capacities, nine-call normalisation, live 896T) packing is closed: no allocation for any T exceeds the endpoint, so gains need a change to the supplier or to one of these premises; and reports two process defects (tautological inherited controls; platform-dependent native pins).",
+ "bottleneck_link": "PR #3633 is the newest conditional candidate of the complex supplier line (kappa 0.0017300963 against the selected 0.0016726602). Independent verification of its allocation and ceiling attainment, and the statement that packing on this inventory is exhausted, inform the director's next frontier and expansion decisions.",
+ "evidence": "verify.py --fetch (RESULT.json, about 3 min; reproduced under CPython 3.14.4 and 3.12.15; 212/212 negative controls rejected by their named rules): B all 1,791,936 roles of PR3633's journal (bound to its payload sha256) pass windows derived two ways, the active-pair exclusion (also a lemma over 18,544 triples), same-call families, capacities, chronological prefixes and the complete invoice over 983,808 bins = the claimed profile; the journal realises the aggregate's 11 capacity-patterns; stock 437,757 (24 controls); A 2,551 patterns, own simplex, rigorous dual (12 zero / 2,539 positive reduced costs on [a_lo, a_hi]), unique LP-minimum profile attained by PR3633, PR3633 CEILING.json and PR3630 dual/digest cross-checked (52 controls); C1 both staged words exact forward and dual (632 inputs), widths = PR3633 PROVIDERS, differing from PR3133 only at helpers 389/397, change localised against the parent words (50 controls); D C = 0.001730096363528623534230 in two enclosures, kappa, gains over PR3626/PR3624/PR3630/PR3605 with improvement tests; PR3653's endpoint 0.001730418899766071163804 reproduced on the same journal with the dual re-certified at it (13 controls); C2 the five inherited reject() controls proved unable to fail in 15 files (65 controls); vendor pins (8 controls). Mutation sweep: 45/45 checker mutations killed after a passing baseline (local, CPython 3.14.4). Local-only: evidence/GATE-DISABLE-DEMO.json, evidence/NATIVE-REPRODUCTION.json."
+}

research/t488-independent-audit/VERIFY.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "schema_version": 1,
+  "status": "ready",
+  "python": "3.12",
+  "requirements": [],
+  "inputs": [],
+  "commands": [
+    {
+      "argv": [
+        "{python}",
+        "-I",
+        "-B",
+        "{package}/verify.py",
+        "--fetch"
+      ],
+      "timeout_seconds": 600,
+      "checks": "Independent verification of open PR #3633 head 72c268f1 (hexapode, T488 staged-width allocation) in standard-library code that reads PR files only as pinned git data (git blob id and sha256) and never imports or runs PR code; --fetch (git >= 2.29, network) writes only fetched objects and refs/audit/prN for PR3633, PR3630, PR3605, PR3624, PR3626, PR3653, PR3638 and PR3642. It checks: both staged supplier words through this contributor's word lineage (forward and dual replay through cleanup and the target endpoint, tracker, cleanup re-derivation, private buffers, frame recount; widths equal PR3633 PROVIDERS.json and differ from main's PR3133 providers only at helpers 389 and 397; the change localised against the parent words on main); the complete literal journal of 1,791,936 roles (shipped compactly and bound to PR3633's pinned payload sha256 by byte-exact re-serialisation): ORDER/DISPATCH rebuilt and bound to PR3633's literal-file pins, source windows derived two ways from the frozen template, strict/closed windows, the active-local-pair exclusion per role and as a template lemma, same-call physical-family exclusion, capacities, chronological compact prefixes, the complete invoice over all 983,808 bins equal to the claimed profile, the aggregate's patterns realised exactly and the physical stock 437,757; an own fixed-inventory LP (2,551 patterns, exact simplex, rigorous dual certificate, unique LP-minimum profile, attainment by PR3633's aggregate, the all-T ceiling within the fixed model, cross-checks of PR3633 CEILING.json and PR3630's dual and digest); the endpoint C = 0.001730096363528623534230 in two rational enclosures, kappa, exact gains over PR3626, PR3624, PR3630 and PR3605 with improvement tests; PR3653's endpoint on the same journal with the dual re-certified at it; and the five reject() controls kept in PR3633's owner auditor (three unsatisfiable predicates, two +1 perturbations of equalities the preceding gate asserted), proved unable to fail in all 15 located copies. It requires every negative control (212) to be rejected by its named rule and the result to equal RESULT.json (timings excluded). See README.md."
+    }
+  ]
+}