mirror of
https://github.com/saymrwulf/ltl-accumulator-verified.git
synced 2026-09-04 20:03:44 +00:00
mrwulf
260ad64511
No theorem was wrong; every fix is spec-surface, audit-mechanism, docs, or harness coverage. Changes: LEAN (Claude F1, GPT M4): - acceptIncl: the consumer's inclusion accept (m<n ∧ Root=some r) is now a named object, not just a theorem hypothesis. Root alone accepts out-of-range m; acceptIncl pins the guard. - acceptIncl_complete / acceptIncl_sound: route Thm 1/2 through it. - extractCons_correct_paper: Thm 3 at the paper's exact quantifiers (n₀≤n₁, no separate 0<n₀; n₀=0 discharged since D₀=[]=take 0). SCRIPT (GPT H1/H2, Claude F3): - Phase 3b: fail-closed audit-surface COVERAGE — every named decl under Proofs/ and gen/ must be in CONES or a documented EXCLUDE (sha256, Bytes); anonymous gen instances count-pinned; every CONES key must be queried by AxiomCheck (no pin-but-never-check). Tested: an unclassified theorem now makes the button exit 1. - H2: distinct markers — LEAN GREEN always, ATTESTATION GREEN only when fidelity actually ran; SKIP/absent-pacta no longer emit the strong marker. Attestation gate keys on ATTESTATION GREEN. - Phase 0: orphan-olean guard (every Proofs/*.olean needs a sibling .lean); deleted 6 orphans; untracked all *.olean/.lake from git and gitignored them (root cause of the F3 tarball leak). HARNESS (Claude F1, GPT M3): - added out-of-range families (m≥n, m>n, n₀>n₁, n₀=0); re-pinned counts 230,271 / 230,016 (match the reviewer's independent RFC difftest exactly); narrowed 'exhaustive' wording to the tested domain. DOCS: README stale rows fixed (freeze banner no longer contradicts table); KNOWN-GAPS gap 3 reworded (general Lemma 2 = specializations), +gaps 9 (cost), 10 (pin init), 11 (acceptIncl resolved); STATEMENT-MAP +acceptIncl rows, +Lemma-2-general note, +constant-vs-property clarification for §10(i). Button: EXIT 0, coverage complete, ATTESTATION GREEN, 230,271/230,016. 56 pinned cones over an ENFORCED surface. LTL untouched (12, bcd15f9d). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
60 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
60 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# Known gaps and scope boundaries (honest ledger)
|
||
|
||
Deliberate, documented, and none silent. Reviewers should verify this
|
||
list is COMPLETE, not merely that the items are acceptable.
|
||
|
||
1. **SHA-256 is opaque** — the single boundary axiom (`LTLAcc.sha256`),
|
||
by design identical to the paper's posture: soundness theorems
|
||
construct collisions, never assume collision resistance.
|
||
2. **No consistency-completeness theorem** (honest ConsRec acceptance).
|
||
Matches the paper (its Theorem 1 is inclusion-only); honest
|
||
consistency behavior is covered by the fidelity harness's honest
|
||
cases (164,224-case agreement with the deployed verifier).
|
||
3. **Lemma 2 is mechanized as specializations, not as one general
|
||
theorem.** The paper's Lemma 2 is a single statement quantified over
|
||
an abstract hash-fold `F` and a connected subtree `S`. The corpus has
|
||
no hash-fold datatype/predicate; it proves the needed instances
|
||
directly — whole-tree (`extractMTH_correct`), ConsRec
|
||
(`consRecBinding`), inclusion (`extractIncl_correct`), and the width
|
||
fact (`hnode_preimage_inj`). These suffice for Theorems 2–3. Two
|
||
consequences: (a) the abstract lemma itself is not a mechanized
|
||
object; (b) the path-instance receipt-uniqueness for `Root` (removed
|
||
with the vacuous `root_binding`) is not restored — optional, unused.
|
||
Any paper claim that "Lemma 2 is mechanized" must read "its
|
||
specializations sufficient for Theorems 2–3 are mechanized."
|
||
4. **Signature layer abstract** — Ed25519 EUF-CMA, the poison/evidence
|
||
retention state, and transferability of fork evidence (paper Prop
|
||
1(2)) are not modeled; `fork_distinct` is the Merkle-layer share only.
|
||
5. **Transliteration bridge** — `fidelity/lean_defs.py` mirrors the Lean
|
||
definitions by quoted-source inspection (the Lean defs are
|
||
noncomputable over the opaque hash, so the bridge cannot be #eval'd
|
||
closed). Same inspection bridge the paper's own harness uses.
|
||
6. **Proposition 2 (verdict integrity) out of scope** — per paper §10's
|
||
mechanization list (i–v). It is a property of the consumer tooling's
|
||
construction, enforced and regression-tested in the pacta repo.
|
||
7. **Multi-step pin monotonicity** — mechanized per-step
|
||
(`pinAccept_monotone`); the paper's multi-step chain is its
|
||
reflexive-transitive iterate, not separately mechanized.
|
||
8. **Process history** (candor): three cone pins were guessed (not read)
|
||
during S5.3–S6 and the audit's failure went unnoticed until S7
|
||
because green was claimed from tailed output rather than the exit
|
||
code. No theorem was affected (kernel-checked throughout); pins were
|
||
corrected, the audit surface defined, and the standing rule is now:
|
||
exit code + ALL GREEN, cones read from #print axioms only.
|
||
|
||
9. **Asymptotic cost not mechanized.** Paper Theorems 2 and 3 assert the
|
||
extractors run in `O(n)` / `O(n₁)` hash evaluations. The mechanization
|
||
proves functional correctness of the named extractors only — no cost
|
||
semantics, recurrence, or computability-after-hash-instantiation. (The
|
||
extractors are `noncomputable` over the opaque `sha256`.)
|
||
10. **Pin-store initialization from the empty pin not modeled**, and
|
||
`pin_prefix_correct` assumes `0 < n`. Trust-on-first-use / the size-0
|
||
initial state is a separate operation; the theorems cover transitions
|
||
from a positive-size pin. (Related to gap 7's per-step scoping.)
|
||
11. **acceptIncl now named (was review F1).** The consumer's inclusion
|
||
acceptance `m < n ∧ Root … = some r` is now the Lean object
|
||
`acceptIncl`, with `acceptIncl_complete`/`acceptIncl_sound` routing
|
||
completeness/soundness through it, and the fidelity harness exercises
|
||
the out-of-range families (`m ≥ n`). `Root` alone still accepts
|
||
out-of-range `m`; that is by design (it is the reconstruction, not the
|
||
accept predicate).
|