mirror of
https://github.com/saymrwulf/ltl-accumulator-verified.git
synced 2026-09-04 20:03:44 +00:00
mrwulf
172a1d0653
Round-4 verdicts: Claude reviewer — nothing blocks the freeze, no remaining findings; GPT-5.6 — approve after minor documentation fixes, attestation scoped to the mechanized model. This round is those fixes; no Lean surface changed. - 218/59 → 222/61 everywhere, and STRUCTURALLY: check.sh Phase 3c asserts the audit counts (STATEMENT-MAP + README vs allowlist/CONES) and the four fidelity pins (STATEMENT-MAP vs run_fidelity.py constants) on every run — stale-count drift is a red button now (R4-1, third recurrence of the class). - Gap 14 reworded to evidence-vs-inference (the invariant "is assumed", not "transfers"), witnesses cited (paper §5.3/§5.4; pacta sthstore.py/logclient.py — outside the fidelity target). New gap 15: deployment refinement invariant unmechanized (GPT's principal finding, split out because it carries the deployed-soundness claim). - Runbook: A1 marked done (both approvals on SD); B2 gains the REQUIRED scoped attestation wording (GPT §11) as a gate condition — entry 13 cannot claim "deployed verifier formally verified". - run_bare.sh fail-closes on Lean version AND commit (rejection path tested with a fake toolchain: FATAL, exit 1). - Harness: "consistency baseline family" line (GPT §8); gap 14 says "fixed offsets n−1/n+1/n+7" (R4-5). - RESPONSE round 5, incl. refutation of GPT §7 (the target tarball demonstrably contains MANIFEST.sha256 + TARGET-PROVENANCE.md; the round-5 kit also ships both unpacked as a courtesy). check.sh exit 0 ATTESTATION GREEN (Phases 0-4 incl. new 3c); selftest exit 0, 9/9 + control. Live LTL untouched (12 leaves, bcd15f9d…). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
65 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
# Statement map: paper §6 ↔ Lean corpus
|
||
|
||
The kernel guarantees every proof below; what a reviewer must vet is the
|
||
**statements** — that each Lean theorem says what the paper's item says.
|
||
This map is the review surface. Paper = "The Lean Transparency Log"
|
||
(https://ltl.zkdefi.org/paper), §6 and §10 (which scopes the
|
||
mechanization to items i–v).
|
||
|
||
| paper item | Lean name | file | cone |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| §5.3 split point k (RFC 9162) | `kbelow` + `kbelow_pos/lt`, `le_two_kbelow`, `kbelow_pow2` (2^j = k < n ≤ 2^{j+1} pins k uniquely) | Basic | no hash axiom |
|
||
| §5.3 MTH | `MTH` | Basic | sha256 |
|
||
| §5.3 Path | `Path` | Completeness | sha256 |
|
||
| §5.3 Root (App. B) | `Root` (Option = rejection) | Basic | sha256 |
|
||
| §5.3 inclusion accept | `acceptIncl` (= `m < n ∧ Root … = some r`); `acceptIncl_complete`, `acceptIncl_sound` route Thm 1/2 through it | Basic, Completeness, Extract | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Lemma 2 (general abstract form) | **not mechanized as one theorem** — proved as specializations (see KNOWN-GAPS gap 3); the row below and the Lemma-2 rows are those instances | — | — |
|
||
| §5.3 ConsRec | `ConsRec` (+ machine-checked base-refactor equivalences `consRec_base_true_eq/false_eq`) | Basic, Refactor | sha256 |
|
||
| Lemma 1 (domain separation) | `domsep` | Basic | **axiom-free** |
|
||
| Theorem 1 (inclusion completeness) | `incl_complete` | Completeness | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Lemma 2, width fact ("65-byte preimages") | `Hash` = length-32 subtype; `hnode_preimage_inj` | gen, Basic | propext |
|
||
| Lemma 2, whole-tree instance | `extractMTH` + `extractMTH_correct` | Descent | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Lemma 2, ConsRec instance (Thm 3 steps 1–2) | `consRecBinding` | Binding3 | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Theorem 2 (inclusion soundness, explicit 𝓔) | `extractIncl` + `extractIncl_correct` | Extract | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Theorem 3 (consistency soundness, explicit 𝓔′) | `extractCons` + `extractCons_correct`; `extractCons_correct_paper` at the paper's exact quantifiers (n₀=0 discharged); `acceptCons_sound` routes it through the named `acceptCons` predicate (size bound derived from acceptance via `consRec_some_le`). Covers the MECHANIZED accept set; transfer to the deployed verifier is conditional on the pinned-pair side condition of gap 14 | Theorem3 | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Prop 1(1) (pin monotonicity + prefix) | `pinAccept`, `pinAccept_monotone`, `pin_prefix_correct` | PinStore | sha256 (+choice) |
|
||
| Prop 1(2), Merkle share | `fork_distinct` (different roots ⇒ different content); transferability = signature layer, out of scope | PinStore | sha256 |
|
||
| non-vacuity guards (anti-pigeonhole) | `extractIncl_nonvacuous`, `extractMTH_nonvacuous`, `extractCons_nonvacuous`, `pin_prefix_nonvacuous` | Extract/Descent/Theorem3/PinStore | sha256 |
|
||
| definition fidelity vs deployed verifier | `fidelity/` harness: MTH==merkle_root, Path==inclusion_proof, verifier agreement 230,271 inclusion + 230,016 consistency over the pinned case families — **not extensional equality**: the lied-size family (73,573 cases) pins the known one-sided divergence of gap 14 (3,867 expected, deployed-accepts-only, direction asserted) | fidelity | (testing) |
|
||
|
||
Note on "assumption-free" (paper §10(i)): `incl_complete`'s cone lists
|
||
`LTLAcc.sha256`, but the theorem assumes **no property** of it — it
|
||
merely *mentions* the opaque constant. Constant-dependence is not
|
||
property-assumption; the soundness theorems likewise carry `sha256`
|
||
without assuming collision resistance.
|
||
|
||
Design invariant of every soundness statement: the collision is the output
|
||
of a **named extractor function** and correctness is a claim about that
|
||
output. A bare `∃ x y, x ≠ y ∧ sha256 x = sha256 y` is provable by
|
||
pigeonhole alone (sha256 maps an infinite domain into the finite 32-byte
|
||
type), so it carries no cryptographic content. What the guards certify
|
||
(precisely — round-2 M3): each named extractor does **not** return a
|
||
collision on at least one canonical honest input, which rules out the
|
||
degeneration where the conclusion is a globally inhabited bare collision
|
||
existential. They do NOT establish logical dependence on every listed
|
||
hypothesis, nor that no other classical argument could reach the
|
||
conclusion on some restricted domain.
|
||
|
||
Audit surface (enforced by `verification/check.sh`, exit 0 = green):
|
||
the FULL compiled environment of the corpus modules — 222 constants,
|
||
read from the Lean environment by `Proofs/Inventory.lean` (fully
|
||
qualified names, kinds, axiom cones) and pinned in
|
||
`verification/inventory-allowlist.txt`, diffed fail-closed both
|
||
directions on every run (round-3 replacement for the round-2 source-regex
|
||
gate, which GPT H1 showed was evadable). The 61 human-reviewed statement
|
||
cones above are additionally checked via `#print axioms` and
|
||
cross-checked against the inventory's independently computed cones.
|
||
(These two counts, and the fidelity pins in the table above, are
|
||
asserted against the allowlist/CONES/harness by check.sh Phase 3c on
|
||
every run — stale-count drift is now a red button, not an erratum:
|
||
review R4-1, after three consecutive rounds of hand-edit failures.)
|
||
`verification/selftest_audit.sh` attacks the gate with nine injection
|
||
cases (attributed/indented/private/instance declarations, a nested
|
||
namespace reusing an audited basename, a smuggled axiom, a deleted
|
||
declaration, and unmanifested Proofs/ and gen/ modules) — each must
|
||
fail the exact production gate.
|