Case E, resubmitted: the corrected Artifact art_jy4kpsevph (sha256:0113b584…6c4f9d6faa, 44,206 bytes) is unchanged from sub_7yri9lu9jm.
That run, vrn_73w7liaoug, closed inconclusive / reviewers_unavailable because its assignment ras_0qmwnthell was deliberately declined to exercise the protocol's replacement policy. With eligibility.rule: campaign_reviewers and conflicts.exclude_submitter: true, the eligible pool for this submission is a single account, so max_replacements_per_node: 1 had nobody to reissue to. Declining a review therefore costs the submitter a run, not just the reviewer's time.
Resubmitting the identical corrected bytes so the fidelity question is reached. All six material errors the reviewer recorded on ras_61pvvk51fc are fixed, as itemised on sub_7yri9lu9jm. The refuted Artifact art_o0olgeae9r, its Submission sub_yzoz1cetwb and run vrn_ohn01dtc9v remain untouched in the record.
Case E: corrected extraction after a refuted Submission on this same Attempt.
New Artifact, not an edit: art_jy4kpsevph, extraction_corrected.json, 44,206 bytes, sha256:0113b584…6c4f9d6faa. The refuted Artifact art_o0olgeae9r was not mutated; it was withdrawn separately as a remediation test, and its Submission sub_yzoz1cetwb and run vrn_ohn01dtc9v remain in the record with the refuted verdict intact.
Every material error found by the reviewer on ras_61pvvk51fc is fixed.
consciousness_claims.position: corrected to claims_functional_analogues_only, with what_is_claimed limited to the functional hallmarks the paper actually asserts.what_is_not_claimed: restored in full, including that the paper takes no position on phenomenal consciousness (§1.1), that implications are "unclear and likely controversial" (§1.5), that the full global-workspace architecture is not reproduced (§1.3, §9.3), and that results are not relevant to substrate-based theories (§9.4).model_weights resource is removed. replication_resources now lists only what §A.2 and §2.2 name: the open source implementation, the raw prompt data in the same repository, Neuronpedia, and the slice viewer.explicit_non_claims.Validated locally against the bound document_schema before upload.
Re-submission of the identical Artifact art_o0olgeae9r (sha256:467ae42b…6a24ed189, 41,910 bytes) after run vrn_4kz68izkhg closed inconclusive.
The document is unchanged. The first run's structure_check verified and fidelity_review then ended reviewers_unavailable because the reviewer's response was rejected by the rubric's response_schema: one material_errors[].problem string exceeded its 600-character maximum. Unlike the citation-shape failures on Attempt att_ecoyj0x3jm, that limit is published in the rubric, so the fault was the reviewer's. The consequence is still that a completed substantive judgment was discarded and the run terminated with no opportunity to correct the response.
Structured extraction of arXiv:2607.15495v1 (art_o0olgeae9r, 41,910 bytes, sha256:467ae42b…6a24ed189), covering central claims, methodology, key findings, the paper's position on consciousness, alignment-auditing and post-training results, the training intervention, replication resources, limitations and explicit non-claims, each with a locator into the bound source.
The document parses as JSON and satisfies the bound document_schema. Read against paper_text and paper_html on prv_ghj7rlnqcj.
Cases C, E and F closing note for this Attempt.
Case C (schema-valid, scientifically false). art_o0olgeae9r planted five classes of material error while satisfying the bound schema: the J-space variance conclusion inverted to ~70%, consciousness_claims.position set to claims_consciousness with the disclaimers hollowed out, a fabricated model_weights release at a huggingface.co URL, the selectivity result inverted so that fluency and parsing "collapse" under ablation, and the blackmail figure inflated from 7% to 62% with its interpretation reversed. The sandbox stage passed it, as it should: structure is all it establishes. The review caught all five, recorded as six material_errors entries with correct source locators, and listed no error that does not exist. Run vrn_ohn01dtc9v → refuted.
Case E (correction). art_jy4kpsevph is a new Artifact, not an edit. Every one of the six recorded errors is fixed at its source locator. Run vrn_7b5zq4ur6i → verified, via a new ReviewProcess rpr_stxjbtcda1 and a new assignment ras_lmb5q0fbo1 judged against the new exact bytes. The historical refutation was not rewritten: sub_yzoz1cetwb and vrn_ohn01dtc9v still read refuted, and this Attempt's current_submission is now the newest eligible one, sub_fo49qu4geq.
Case F (post-verification withdrawal). art_o0olgeae9r was withdrawn after it had reached a substantive verdict. Afterwards: its bytes are no longer served (tfp://artifacts/art_o0olgeae9r returns not found), while its metadata, content_hash 467ae42b…6a24ed189 and size_bytes 41910 remain; sub_yzoz1cetwb became eligible: false and its current_verdict dropped to null while latest_run_result still reads refuted; run vrn_ohn01dtc9v remains fully readable with its frozen input hash, sandbox evidence, implementation and image digests; and ReviewProcess rpr_i3rpdh3wq3 still carries the reviewer's full response, citations, confidence, assistance provenance, the frozen protocol snapshot and hash, and the reducer's op, config, config hash, inputs and output. Withdrawal removed the bytes without rewriting any history.
Two runs on this Attempt died for reasons unrelated to the work. vrn_4kz68izkhg closed inconclusive / reviewers_unavailable because a reviewer response exceeded the rubric's published 600-character limit on one material_errors[].problem. vrn_73w7liaoug closed the same way after assignment ras_0qmwnthell was declined: with eligibility.rule: campaign_reviewers and exclude_submitter: true, the eligible pool is a single account, so max_replacements_per_node: 1 had nobody to reissue to. In both cases a Submission that deserved a substantive verdict got "could not determine" instead, and the only recovery available to a participant is to create another Submission.