igneum-network/igneum
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Activity

adv-accept report: final tonight's live rows (12 lowest: 5 beyond; 11 random: 1 beyond), counts corrected

Browse source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
igneum-labs 2026-10-07 19:24:00 +00:00
parent 29b6cb11eb
commit fde905de46
1 changed files with 15 additions and 11 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

26
docs/analysis/cryptanalysis/report-acceptance-rule.md
View file

@ -295,6 +295,8 @@ sweep's ratio column already locates (rows under 0.9810 at 256 units, then a 2^2
| 6610 | 0.9960 | 1.062x within | +0.010% (0.10) | clear |
| 106474 | 0.9960 | 0.9996x within | -0.000% (0.00) | clear |
| 4765 | 0.9960 | 1.020x within | +0.003% (0.03) | clear |
| 106700 | 0.9960 | 1.0006x within | +0.000% (0.00) | clear |
| 1352 (random) | 0.9999 | 1.057x within | +0.009% | clear |
| 4107 (random) | 0.9999 | 1.0004x within | +0.000% | clear |
| 101710 (random) | 0.9998 | 1.0034x within | +0.001% | clear |
| 101886 (random) | 0.9998 | 1.0000x within | +0.000% | clear |
@ -314,17 +316,19 @@ rate near 1 in 10 among accepted programs (the 10^6-nonce census read 0 of 47 be
sharper at 2^24), and the selector's 6 of 8 is an enrichment of about 6x over that base rate, not a clean
separation. The hot-set test proper (X_f >= f) has fired on 1 of 18 programs measured at 2^24 (100767).
Reading at 20:20 BST, honestly: the 256-unit selector is weak. Of the 11 lowest-ratio seeds measured live
at 2^24 (the five first confirmed, then 3664, 103378, 105756, 6610, 106474, 4765), 6 are beyond the f8 1.2x
gate and 5 are not; the random control is 1 of 10 beyond. The six that are beyond are the five confirmed
first (256-unit ratios 0.9986 to 0.9988, 2^20 ratios 0.9832 to 0.9919) and 3664; the five that are not sit
LOWER on the 256-unit read (0.9945 to 0.9960), which says the 256-unit read is noise-dominated at that level
(one standard deviation of a 65,536-evaluation distinct count is about 0.001 in the ratio) and the real
selector is the 2^20 ratio the rule itself computes (2.8 s per candidate: 100064's 0.9832, 100211's 0.9907
and 100767's 0.9919 are genuinely low; 3664's 2^20 ratio is in the queued gap read). So: selector enrichment
about 5x over the base rate (55 percent beyond against 10 percent), false-positive rate 5 of 11 on the
256-unit read; the error on both is binomial at n = 11 and n = 10, about plus or minus 15 points. The
hot-set test proper (X_f >= f) fired on 1 of 21 programs at 2^24, and on none of the random 10.
Reading at 20:25 BST (final for tonight's rows; corrected: 100629 was within at 10^6, 1.011x), honestly:
the 256-unit selector is weak. Of the 12 lowest-ratio seeds measured live (100211, 100064, 100767, 100159,
100629, then 3664, 103378, 105756, 6610, 106474, 4765, 106700), 5 are beyond the f8 1.2x gate and 7 are not;
the random control is 1 of 11 beyond (105915 at 1.40x). The five that are beyond are four of the first
five (256-unit ratios 0.9986 to 0.9988, 2^20 ratios 0.9832 to 0.9919) and 3664 (0.9945); the seven that are
not include five that sit LOWER on the 256-unit read (0.9960), which says the 256-unit read is noise-dominated
at that level (one standard deviation of a 65,536-evaluation distinct count is about 0.001 in the ratio) and
the real selector is the 2^20 ratio the rule itself computes (2.8 s per candidate: 100064's 0.9832,
100211's 0.9907 and 100767's 0.9919 are genuinely low; 3664's 2^20 ratio is in the re-queued gap read). So:
selector enrichment about 4.6x over the base rate (42 percent beyond against 9 percent), false-positive rate
7 of 12 on the 256-unit read; the error on both is binomial at n = 12 and n = 11, about plus or minus 14
points. The hot-set test proper (X_f >= f) fired on 1 of 22 programs measured at 2^24 (100767), and on none
of the 11 random.
### Class v5 check of the exemplar (PENDING the lock; the defender's question)