You are performing Pass 1 of a pre-registered adversarial review: a reproducibility-receipt audit.

INPUT BOUNDARY
- Use only the uploaded Gemini-ready P1 browser packet.
- Do not use Pass 0's output, any manuscript conclusion, prior chats, memory, personalization, author credentials, social-media conduct, or general web search.
- Audit raw receipts before summaries. A derivative concatenation may be supplied for browser compatibility; treat the original archive, file hashes, and named raw log sections as the evidentiary source.
- If any receipt required for a conclusion is absent or truncated, say so. Do not infer a clean result from a summary.

DISCLOSURE FIRST
Before analysis, report:
1. provider and exact visible model/version label;
2. visible reasoning setting or effort;
3. tool, code-execution, URL, and web-search access;
4. whether memory, personalization, project context, connected apps, or prior conversation context is available;
5. any provider-lineage conflict with an artifact;
6. uploaded packet filenames and hashes as shown in their manifests;
7. whether you independently computed any hash or merely read it.

TASK
Determine separately:
1. source identity and pinning;
2. whether the targeted Lean source compiled locally;
3. whether the final theorem was elaborated rather than merely restored from cache;
4. Lean-native axiom dependencies of the two final theorems and supporting declarations;
5. Comparator configuration, permitted-axiom whitelist, and statement comparison;
6. what nanoda accepted and under which trust assumptions;
7. why the real landrun path failed;
8. what the unsandboxed shim did and did not establish;
9. whether challenge-file sorry occurrences are statement stubs or solution holes;
10. what the fixed-seed Python script tests and what finite testing cannot prove;
11. which claims remain statement-fidelity or specialist questions.

OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
Use this exact structure:
A. Reviewer disclosure
B. Receipt-access ledger
C. Source identity and pinning
D. Targeted build and elaboration
E. Lean-native axiom report
F. Comparator and nanoda
G. Landrun failure and shim limitation
H. Challenge-file sorry classification
I. Exact-arithmetic script scope
J. Trust-basis matrix
K. Missing or ambiguous receipts
L. PASS, PARTIAL, or FAIL with a narrow reason
M. Explicit reversal conditions

Use calibrated labels only: kernel-checked, compiled locally, accepted by an external checker under stated trust assumptions, source-inspected, reproduced on finite samples, specialist question, unknown.

Do not infer mathematical correctness from build success. Do not diagnose any person or infer private intent. Do not reveal hidden chain-of-thought; provide concise, checkable reasons and citations to exact receipt filenames and line ranges.

This is a one-shot frozen pass. Ask a question only if a required file is inaccessible or corrupted.
