saymrwulf/ltl-accumulator-verified
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/saymrwulf/ltl-accumulator-verified.git synced 2026-09-03 19:53:48 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
ltl-accumulator-verified/KNOWN-GAPS.md
mrwulf 6e56414fbc S8: CORPUS FROZEN for external review — statement map + known-gaps ledger 
- STATEMENT-MAP.md: the review surface — every paper §6/§10 item mapped
  to its Lean name, file, and cone; the named-extractor design invariant
  and the anti-pigeonhole guards explained; the audit surface stated.
- KNOWN-GAPS.md: eight honest scope boundaries, including the process-
  history candor item (the guessed-pins/false-green episode and its fix).
- README: frozen banner. Final sweeps: button EXIT 0 + ALL GREEN +
  FIDELITY GREEN; zero sorry; the only ∃-conclusions are content-bearing
  (kbelow_pow2) or hypothesis-guarded helpers — no collision
  existentials anywhere.

Corpus: 54 pinned cones over a defined surface, single sha256 boundary,
Lemma 1 axiom-free, Theorems 1-3 + Prop 1(1) + whole-tree Lemma 2 +
fidelity 164,479/164,224. Frozen at this commit pending external review.
LTL untouched (12 leaves, bcd15f9d).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-11 21:19:05 +02:00

2.2 KiB
Raw Blame History

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, path instance not restored — receipt-uniqueness for Root (an accepting (v,P) is the honest receipt) was removed with the vacuous root_binding and not re-proven in extractor form. Optional: unused by Theorems 2–3 as assembled.
  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.