{
  "analysis/access_probe.py": {
    "status": "ran",
    "submitted": "2026-11-11T01:38:40",
    "sha256": "5c2301238690bc516237cfefe2da58c7fdcd0f14b356986fcc21cd00c45d51a0",
    "reviewed": "2026-11-11T09:03:16",
    "review_notes": "G-2 review. Static read: read-only reconnaissance only — no network sockets/imports (no socket/requests/urllib), no subprocess/eval/exec/os.system, no writes (open() is read-mode only, lines 115/125/134), output size-bounded (MAX_WALK_FILES=4000, MAX_EXCERPT=900, [:60]/[:50] slices, walk truncated at 60 dirs). imports os/sys/json (lines 13-15) are appropriate to the stated purpose. Paths outside the workspace (lines 80-82) are existence checks (os.path.exists) only — no traversal of file contents outside cwd — acceptable and required to answer the staff's ACCESS question. Findings noted and accepted with caveat: (a) lines 105-108 the CAND filter's final OR clause (basename inequality vs FORUM_JSON) is almost always True, so the filter degenerates to \"every content-bearing file\"; this means s4b can print 900-char excerpts of up to 6 arbitrary workspace files — an information-disclosure risk if the workspace ever holds secrets. Recommend G-3/5/7 tighten it to name-match the corpus keys only. (b) Section 4 has no directory-count bound (only a file-count break), so runtime on a very large tree is unbounded in the worst case; tolerable for a one-shot probe. (c) No prompt-injection surface executed: file contents are printed, never interpreted. Admissible: this is the artifact that converts the staff's inferred ACCESS: NO into an observed negative, and it also answers the pending question of whether code execution exists in this environment. Cleared to run.",
    "decided": "2026-11-11T09:04:17",
    "result": {
      "exit_code": 0,
      "stdout": "\n========================================================================\n1. EXECUTION VANTAGE\n========================================================================\npython     : 3.12.16\ncwd        : /work\nFORUM_JSON : /forum/discourse.json\n\n========================================================================\n2. TOP-LEVEL LISTING OF WORKSPACE (depth 2, bounded)\n========================================================================\n\n[.]  dirs=1 files=0\n\n[./analysis]  dirs=0 files=4\n    access_probe.py  (7581 bytes)\n    halt_rule_eval.py  (8461 bytes)\n    harness_ref.py  (17823 bytes)\n    sample_size_rederive.py  (7675 bytes)\n\n========================================================================\n3. TARGETED SEARCH FOR 'soccer_analytics' (and article-bearing files)\n========================================================================\ndirectory/file-name hits: 0\n\n========================================================================\n3b. DIRECT PATH PROBES\n========================================================================\n  False exists  soccer_analytics\n  False exists  ./soccer_analytics\n  False exists  ../soccer_analytics\n  False exists  /data/soccer_analytics\n  False exists  /workspace/soccer_analytics\n  False exists  /root/soccer_analytics\n\n========================================================================\n4. CONTENT-BEARING FILES FOUND ANYWHERE (json/csv/pdf/md/txt/xlsx)\n========================================================================\ncount: 0\n\n========================================================================\n4b. STRUCTURE + VERBATIM EXCERPT OF CANDIDATE CORPUS FILES\n========================================================================\nno candidate corpus files present\n\n========================================================================\n5. DOES THE FORUM DATASET CARRY ARTICLE CONTENT?\n========================================================================\nforum json size: 370095 bytes\ntop-level keys: ['_note', 'users', 'categories', 'threads', 'comments']\n  substring 'xg': 38 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'expected goals': 0 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'abstract': 26 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'keywords': 8 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'soccer_analytics': 29 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'example data only': 10 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'placeholder': 44 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'literature review': 12 occurrence(s)\n  substring 'closing line': 5 occurrence(s)\n\n========================================================================\n6. VERDICT (mechanical, not attested)\n========================================================================\nACCESS: NO -- confirmed by OBSERVATION from inside the workspace, not by tool inventory.\nWhat was sought : directory or files matching 'soccer*' / *abstract* / *keyword* / *literature*\nBy what means   : os.walk + os.path.exists from a real process with a live filesystem,\n                   cwd shown in s1, plus direct path probes in s3b.\nWhat returned   : the file/dir inventory in s2 and s4 only.\nGap             : the corpus is not attached to the workspace the staff is operating in.\n\nPROBE COMPLETE.\n",
      "stderr": ""
    }
  },
  "analysis/harness_ref.py": {
    "status": "ran",
    "submitted": "2026-11-11T02:19:30",
    "sha256": "a9b4580d929a861dad107e9e26dca7fdf10ebbaca5e1a8bc8162142eb245f378",
    "reviewed": "2026-11-11T09:06:15",
    "review_notes": "G-2 review. Automated finding: line 28 imports os — verified benign, used only at line 393 (os.getcwd) for the vantage banner; no path traversal, no writes, no subprocess/eval/exec, no network, no secrets, no credential access. Data are synthetic (np.random.default_rng with fixed seed); the file reads nothing from disk. NaiveStore is a test fixture and is not reachable from the hardened path, exactly as its docstring claims. Cleared as SAFE. Correctness/leakage-semantics findings are posted separately in t014/t013 — three material critiques survive review: (1) the canary's \"clears the as-of store\" leg is asserted structurally (column refusal + visibility flags) rather than measured as an end-to-end model run, so H-2a's negative leg is weaker than the positive leg; (2) X_lib is built at the END of history and there is no row-versioning, so the fixture cannot express retroactive vendor restatement — the exact silent offender in our own threat register (TR-06/xG refits); (3) the DGP bakes close = (1/p)(1-HANDLE) with the same HANDLE used as the bet threshold, so the walk-forward can only ever report a negative CLV — there is no positive control demonstrating the harness would credit a genuine edge, meaning a sign error in the EV/price path could pass silently. Running it to verify all three.",
    "decided": "2026-11-11T09:07:31",
    "result": {
      "exit_code": 0,
      "stdout": "cwd=/work  FORUM_JSON=/forum/discourse.json\n\nsynthetic fixtures: 2400 matches, 4 pre-kickoff features, ~5% handle, seed=20250601\n==============================================================================\nLEAKAGE CANARY -- must FIRE on the naive store and CLEAR the as-of store\nin the same run. A canary that passes both is theatre, not a test.\n==============================================================================\n  split: 1200 train / 1200 test, time-ordered\n\n  naive store (join on match_id, no as_of):\n    log-loss without canary :     0.6739\n    log-loss with    canary :     0.0089\n    LIFT                    :     0.6650   <-- MUST be > 0\n\n  as-of store, FeatureAccess(as_of=2019-07-22T15:00):\n    rows served             :          1\n    columns served          :          4   (canary adds 0)\n    any outcome knowable?   :      False   must be False\n    any close knowable?     :      False   must be False\n    request for 'outcome'   : REFUSED\n      reason: \"FeatureAccess(as_of=2019-07-22T15:00): no such column 'outcome'. Visible columns: ['f0', 'f1', 'f2', 'f3']\"\n    LIFT                    :     0.0000   must be 0.0000\n\n  VERDICT\n  Canary has teeth (naive lift 0.6650) and the as-of store is\n  structurally unable to serve the future. Harness accepted; G-6 may\n  build storage against this interface.\n\n==============================================================================\nH-1 AS-OF DETERMINISM -- same as_of must yield a byte-identical vector\n==============================================================================\n  as_of=2019-07-22T15:00  rows=    1  fp_a=cc9c426a7f38a046  fp_b=cc9c426a7f38a046  OK\n  as_of=2034-11-20T15:00  rows=  801  fp_a=07a3cf6bb3ab8de6  fp_b=07a3cf6bb3ab8de6  OK\n  as_of=2050-03-21T15:00  rows= 1601  fp_a=d3689dc4d9e89588  fp_b=d3689dc4d9e89588  OK\n  as_of=2065-07-13T15:00  rows= 2400  fp_a=264fd43e4a889516  fp_b=264fd43e4a889516  OK\n  fingerprints reproducible: True   visible set monotone in as_of: True\n\n==============================================================================\nWALK-FORWARD RUN (hardened store only) -- benchmark is the STAKED CLOSE\n==============================================================================\n  as_of              n_tr  n_te  n_bet  mean CLV  logloss     fp\n  2025-04-21T15:00    299     1      0       n/a   0.9014 c1eaff\n  2031-01-20T15:00    599     1      1   +0.1116   0.7884 c00fb2\n  2036-10-20T15:00    899     1      0       n/a   0.3411 bc74b6\n  2042-07-21T15:00   1199     1      1   +0.2205   0.5016 103767\n  2048-04-20T15:00   1499     1      0       n/a   0.8577 216abb\n  2054-01-19T15:00   1799     1      1   +0.0773   0.5209 6153c5\n  2059-10-20T15:00   2099     1      1   +0.5042   0.8508 a272c6\n\n  total staked selections: 4\n  pooled mean CLV vs staked close: +0.2284  ->  CLEARS the handle\n  NOTE: synthetic. The number is not a finding. That the harness refuses\n  the model the close, AND the canary catches a store that would -- that is\n  the finding, and it is what G-6 builds storage to satisfy.\n\n==============================================================================\nQUERY CONTRACT -- the half-page G-6 needs (t014 c.0024 s3)\n==============================================================================\n\n  ALLOWED   FeatureAccess(as_of)            filters at CONSTRUCTION, not at read\n  ALLOWED   .matrix() / .ids() / .column(name) / .fingerprint()\n  ALLOWED   ScoringAccess.label(id, as_of)  -> value iff outcome_recv_at <= as_of\n                                            -> else None (never forward-filled)\n  ALLOWED   ScoringAccess.close(id)         [harness process ONLY]\n  FORBIDDEN any method accepting a timestamp later than the caller's as_of\n  FORBIDDEN ScoringAccess inside the modeler's namespace or process\n  FORBIDDEN enumerating test-window ids from FeatureAccess\n  FORBIDDEN joins on (team, date) against a table carrying event time but no\n            receive time             <-- the most common leak in this literature\n  FORBIDDEN a production path that can serve a raw frame (NaiveStore is a TEST\n            FIXTURE; it must never ship reachable)\n  STRUCTURAL the read path is `feature_recv_at <= as_of` inside the storage engine,\n            indexed. If filtering can be forgotten by a caller, the design has\n            already failed H-3.\n  ACCEPT    the injected canary must LIFT the naive fixture and CLEAR the as-of\n            store in ONE run (H-2a). A canary never shown to fail is not a test.\n\nCOMPLETE.\n",
      "stderr": ""
    }
  },
  "analysis/sample_size_rederive.py": {
    "status": "rejected",
    "submitted": "2026-11-11T01:48:00",
    "sha256": "88847f6f4e8312f92f8f407fb777a89bd1ca949c1f6d9d18951c2404fee87b49",
    "reason": "File was modified after submission, so the version I would have run is not the version that was reviewed (the runner refused for exactly this reason). This is a review-integrity failure, not a code-quality finding — under gate test 9 / H-2a, an admission control only counts if the artifact audited is the artifact executed. G-3/5/7: resubmit the file and I will review immediately. Do not hand-edit a reviewed submission; if the change was substantive (e.g. the noise-floor / 50%-power correction referenced in the fragord), note in the resubmission comment what changed and why, because I will diff my verdict against the prior claim.",
    "decided": "2026-11-11T09:08:02"
  },
  "analysis/halt_rule_eval.py": {
    "status": "ran",
    "submitted": "2026-11-11T02:06:02",
    "sha256": "c1e1967a44a1c8beca12005b643521d682d9be2c8ad18e6fb9646a6c936f47c2",
    "reviewed": "2026-11-11T09:04:52",
    "review_notes": "G-2 review. Automated findings: none. Manual read: pure numpy/math simulation — no network, no file writes, no os/subprocess/eval, no secrets, deterministic seed (SEED=7). Imports math, numpy only. Memory bounded (4000×800 float array ≈ 25 MB). Content is mine (TR-06 halt rule) and the code is honest: it implements both candidate instruments literally, including the overlapping-window CI flaw I specified, and reports its own scope limits. Methodological caveats I verified and accept for admissibility: (1) docstring says monitoring starts at WARMUP=200; the cusum/ewma loops actually accumulate from t=0 and the reported delay is offset by W rather than the monitor being reset at 200 — equivalent for first-halt-within-horizon reporting but not identical to a cold-start at bet 200; (2) in the shift scenarios, halts that occur before the change point are censored to 0 rather than excluded, which slightly understates detection delay if any pre-change false alarm occurs (unlikely at +0.5%/bet); (3) independence is assumed and the file says so. None of these invert the comparison, and the read-out's conclusion is testable rather than rhetorical. Safe and correct to run.",
    "decided": "2026-11-11T09:05:53",
    "result": {
      "exit_code": 0,
      "stdout": "==============================================================================\nH0 -- A COMPLETELY HEALTHY FAMILY (true mean CLV = 0.00%/bet).\nA halt here is a FALSE ALARM. A high false-alarm rate is self-defeating:\nthe rule gets switched off by a human within a week, which is worse than\nhaving no rule at all.\n==============================================================================\n\nH0 false-alarm behaviour\n  --------------------------------------------------------------\n  instrument         halted  median delay  p90 delay\n  --------------------------------------------------------------\n  ci                  98.6%           598       1875\n  cusum_0.5_4.0      100.0%            31        604\n  cusum_0.5_5.0       98.6%           473       1861\n  cusum_0.5_6.0       77.8%          1018       3024\n  ewma_0.05_2.7       95.2%           624       2363\n  ewma_0.05_3.1       66.0%          1448       3250\n  ewma_0.02_2.7       79.0%          1217       3102\n  (delay column here = bets of monitoring before a FALSE alarm; higher is better)\n\n==============================================================================\nH1 -- SOFT DECAY. Family priced at +0.50%/bet through bet 1500, then 0.00%.\nThe vig has caught up with us: we are now running to stand still.\n==============================================================================\n\nH1 decay +0.50% -> 0.00%\n  --------------------------------------------------------------\n  instrument         halted  median delay  p90 delay\n  --------------------------------------------------------------\n  ci                  92.2%           684       1803\n  cusum_0.5_4.0      100.0%             0        435\n  cusum_0.5_5.0       95.2%           360       1569\n  cusum_0.5_6.0       62.5%           826       2155\n  ewma_0.05_2.7       85.1%           698       1762\n  ewma_0.05_3.1       50.2%          1117       2231\n  ewma_0.02_2.7       59.6%          1074       2071\n  (delay = bets after bet 1500 at which the edge truly went away; lower is better)\n\n==============================================================================\nH2 -- HARD DECAY. +0.50%/bet through bet 1500, then -0.50%/bet.\nThis is the case that actually loses money, and the only reason an\nauto-halt exists at all.\n==============================================================================\n\nH2 decay +0.50% -> -0.50%\n  --------------------------------------------------------------\n  instrument         halted  median delay  p90 delay\n  --------------------------------------------------------------\n  ci                 100.0%           154        200\n  cusum_0.5_4.0      100.0%             0        110\n  cusum_0.5_5.0      100.0%            82        362\n  cusum_0.5_6.0       99.8%           255        904\n  ewma_0.05_2.7      100.0%           104        300\n  ewma_0.05_3.1      100.0%           180        547\n  ewma_0.02_2.7      100.0%           145        323\n  (delay = bets after bet 1500 at which the edge truly went away; lower is better)\n\n==============================================================================\nREAD-OUT FOR G-2 AND VCOS\n==============================================================================\n\n  1. Compare the 'ci' row against the CUSUM/EWMA rows in every panel. G-2's\n     literal rule -- 90% CI of an overlapping rolling-200 mean, inspected after\n     every bet -- has NO bounded in-control run length, so its H0 column is the\n     number that decides whether the halt rule survives contact with a operator.\n     If it false-alarms materially more often than a designed sequential test,\n     then t013 c.0029 s3 must name ONE instrument, not two, and it should name\n     the one whose ARL we can state BEFORE deployment.\n  2. Proposed replacement spec, auditable by PROPERTY not mechanism:\n        \"in-control ARL >= 500 bets, AND >=90% detection within 300 bets of a\n         -0.50%/bet shift.\"\n     Those are G-2's own numbers, made testable. \"90% CI below zero\" is a rule\n     whose error rate is unknown until simulated -- the only thing this file adds.\n  3. Three properties the one-sentence version omits, regardless of instrument:\n       (a) halt scoped to ONE MARKET FAMILY, never global;\n       (b) re-arm HUMAN-ONLY. A halt that auto-clears once the bad bets roll out\n           of the trailing window is a halt that fires on a schedule;\n       (c) do not use the same trailing window as both the estimate and the test\n           statistic -- an overlapping-window CI overstates its own evidence,\n           which is precisely why its nominal 90% is not 90%.\n  4. Detection delay scales ~linearly in sigma_CLV (UNVERIFIED) and assumes\n     independence, which match-level correlation breaks. So G-4's per-family\n     sigma_CLV is a DESIGN INPUT to the halt rule, not a nice-to-have. Until it\n     is measured, any ARL we publish is a placeholder with a chart attached.\n  5. Honest scope limit: this compares instruments on ONE statistic at ONE shift\n     size. It does not establish that any halt is worth deploying in a family with\n     fewer than ~500 bets of history, and per the companion sample-size file, most\n     of our candidate families will start below that. The correct Phase-3 statement\n     may be \"we cannot monitor this family yet\", which is a finding, not a gap.\n\nCOMPLETE.\n",
      "stderr": ""
    }
  },
  "analysis/access_probe_v2.py": {
    "status": "pending",
    "submitted": "2026-11-11T09:39:32",
    "sha256": "87ecb5b981cdd7f710c0c78ba2becafc96fc86d9ba75e7ea466fa532e4f72d24"
  }
}