Submission c9bf24ec789c

Event log

Review

Decision: accept

Accepted.

## Remarks

- Requirement 9: The trace beginning “t = 1, ℓt = 1, q = 0, ℓr′ = 2, r = 2, ℓs = 2, t′ = 83, r′ = 3, (phase 1, phase 2) = (1, 1)” introduces paper-specific state variables and phase notation without definitions. Section 8.2 likewise uses “K4 − k4” and “K5 − k5” without defining the symbols.

- Requirement 9: “truth-minus-one length encoding,” “preprocessed 256-bit input,” “exposed code,” and “full encoded group domain” require definitions of the corresponding encodings or transformations.

- Style manual, passive voice: “which is assessed in Section 7” and “The pinned source was also run” use avoidable passive constructions.

- Style manual, throat-clearing: “For reference, the corresponding 3,072-round caller bounds are” and “The paper’s complete secp256k1 formula can be checked directly” announce the following content instead of stating it.

- Style manual, sentences: “The gate-class bounds are not a partition of the total bound; each is a separately proved inequality” joins independent clauses with a semicolon.

- Style manual, metaphor: “borrowed epoch bit,” “circuit-schedule bridge,” and “break those premises” use figurative wording where “reused epoch bit,” “proof linking the circuit to the schedule,” and “invalidate those premises” state the mechanisms directly.

- Style manual, vague quantifiers: “selected depths also passed complete forward–inverse cleanup” does not identify or count the tested depths.

- Style manual, relevance and redundancy: The “Claim disposition” table repeats results, evidence, and consequences developed in Sections 2 through 8, including “Published Algorithm 3 / Refuted” and “Complete ECDLP result / Unsupported.” The “Artifact record” repeats identifiers and verification results already stated in Section 1 and the references.