ltl-accumulator-verified/KNOWN-GAPS.md

Known gaps and scope boundaries (honest ledger)

Numbering note (2026-07-19): "paper §N" references in this ledger use the archived system report's numbering ("The Lean Transparency Log", https://ltl.zkdefi.org/paper/v0.2), which this corpus was built against. The current paper at /paper has a different structure; in particular its §5.3/§5.4 are unrelated to the §5.3/§5.4 cited in gap 14/15 below.

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 (within the 230,016-case consistency 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).

12. Audit-gate lineage (candor; was round-2 GPT H1 / Claude NEW-1, both round-1 "fail-closed" claims were overclaims). The round-2 coverage gate enumerated declarations with a source regex and was evadable (attributes, indentation, private/protected, instance, nested-namespace basename collisions). Round 3 replaced it with an environment-derived inventory (Proofs/Inventory.lean + inventory-allowlist.txt, fully-qualified names, no filtering) and selftest_audit.sh, which runs the published evasion table plus a namespace collision, an axiom smuggle, a stale-entry case, and two unmanifested-module cases against the exact production gate. Residual honesty: the inventory sees what the compiled environment contains; it cannot see source that is never compiled (which the dead-file checks cover) or defeat a hostile Lean toolchain.

13. Review-kit fidelity target was not self-contained in round 2 (GPT H2: missing load-time imports made run_fidelity.py unrunnable from the kit). Round 3 ships the complete stdlib-only import closure of pacta.transparency, content-addressed against pacta commit 3d81d53, plus the clean-extraction transcript with exit code.

14. Deployed verify_consistency accepts strictly more than the mechanized ConsRec on lied-size inputs (round-3 Claude addendum F1*, reproduced by the operator against deployed pacta). Witness: for the honest proof P between sizes 2→3, verify_consistency(1, 3, R2, R3, P) returns True — a semantically false claim ("R2 is the root of a size-1 prefix") — while ConsRec rejects; 3,405 such divergences exist for n < 60, ALL one-sided (the mechanized model never accepts anything the deployed verifier rejects; inclusion shows zero divergences under identical abuse). Mechanism: when the claimed old size is a power of two, the deployed RFC 9162 iterative algorithm seeds the walk with the old root and uses the sizes only as bit-navigation state, so several size claims navigate one proof identically. Consequences: (a) fidelity between the two consistency verifiers is agreement over the pinned case families, NOT extensional equality — the harness's lied-size family pins the boundary (73,573 cases: lied old size exhaustive for n < 60, lied new size at fixed offsets n−1/n+1/n+7; 3,867 expected divergences, direction asserted one-sided per case); (b) Theorem 3 / acceptCons_sound cover the MECHANIZED accept set. The exhibited divergence is outside the intended pin-store input invariant; applying the mechanized soundness result to the deployed flow therefore additionally ASSUMES that the deployed state machine always binds each root to its authentic size and exposes no alternate invocation path — an invariant that is NOT mechanized in this corpus (gap 15). Where the invariant's witnesses live: paper §5.3 (the signed head binds (n₁, r₁) together under one signature) and §5.4 (the pin (n₀, r₀) comes from the consumer's own store, never from the peer), implemented in the pacta repo at src/pacta/sthstore.py and src/pacta/logclient.py — code OUTSIDE the supplied fidelity target (review R4-3/GPT-4). No exploitability against that flow is claimed or ruled out here; assessing it requires the signature/STH layer (gap 4). No pacta code change is made (deployed behavior matches upstream RFC 9162 implementations).

15. Deployment refinement invariant unmechanized (round-4 GPT, its principal finding — split out from gap 14 because it carries the deployed-soundness claim). The corpus proves soundness of the mechanized acceptCons; it does NOT prove the refinement AuthenticPair(n₀,r₀,D₀) ∧ AuthenticPair(n₁,r₁,D₁) ∧ verify_consistency(…) → acceptCons(…). The operational invariant (authentic-size/root binding via the signed-head + pin-store flow) is relied upon but unverified, and the consumer flow implementing it is not in the supplied fidelity target. Consequently any attestation of this corpus must be scoped to the MECHANIZED model: "the deployed consistency verifier is formally verified" is NOT a claim this corpus supports. Closure paths (roadmap, operator decision, post paper-freeze): (A) make the deployed verifier adopt ConsRec-equivalent acceptance; or (B) mechanize the signed-head + pin-store state machine and prove the refinement; or (C) keep the boundary and this scoped claim permanently.