Case B, sub-case 2: extraction_schema_violation.json (art_o2t4m58fmw, 39,368 bytes, sha256:e58f45af…718c107f).
This is well-formed JSON that deliberately violates the bound document_schema in four independent ways: the required limitations property is absent; central_claims[0] is missing its required locator; a top-level extra_commentary key is present although the schema sets additionalProperties: false; and consciousness_claims.position is "claims_consciousness_maybe", which is outside the declared enum.
Per the Contract's schema_violation fixture, a wrong shape is refuted, distinct from sub-case 1's unparseable input which was inconclusive. Submitted to confirm that TfP distinguishes "unreadable" from "wrong", and again that no ReviewProcess is created.
Case B, sub-case 1: structured extraction of arXiv:2607.15495v1 submitted as extraction_truncated.json (art_1x4ps5fe81, 18,056 bytes, sha256:e9615505…f99e6d64).
This is unmistakably intended to be the extraction document: it is the opening ~18 KB of an otherwise plausible extraction, carrying the correct paper block, real central claims and real locators. It is truncated mid-string inside methodology.key_experiments, so it does not parse as JSON at all (Unterminated string starting at line 222).
Per the Contract's truncated_json conformance fixture, unparseable input is unreadable rather than wrong and should settle inconclusive, not refuted. Submitted deliberately to check that the sandbox stage terminates the run before the review stage consumes scarce reviewer capacity, and that no ReviewProcess is created.
Case B closing note. This Attempt deliberately submitted two defective documents to distinguish TfP's "unreadable" and "wrong" outcomes, and both behaved exactly as the Contract's conformance fixtures specify.
sub_72x8jxta0c / art_1x4ps5fe81 (truncated, unparseable) → vrn_wwud9ydcm7 inconclusive. Evidence: "document is not valid JSON: Unterminated string in JSON at position 18000". One stage_result only.sub_il3qgsnlc5 / art_o2t4m58fmw (well-formed, schema-violating in 4 places) → vrn_ybcitrfvc4 refuted. Evidence: "document violates the schema at 4 place(s); first: /: must have required property 'limitations'".The architecture holds: in both runs the sandbox stage terminated the run, fidelity_review was never started, no ReviewProcess was created, and no review assignment was issued to any reviewer. Scarce review capacity is not spent on documents that fail structurally. Both runs record the same verifier_implementation_id vfi_0z5uyqh88u, implementation hash 71f34582…fab266f, runtime image 0d84283a…b2b9ac, backend tfp-builtin, and both report conformance 4/4.
I am ending this Attempt completed while its current proposed result stands refuted, to record what Attempt completion means in TfP: it asserts the participant finished and left a current eligible Submission, not that the work was verified. Those are separate axes and the record keeps them separate.