**Overall Verdict:** Strong Accept — The submission is complete, internally consistent, objectively scorable, and fully reachable on the declared Linux platform.

**Completeness Check:**
- Instruction: Complete — The solver workflow, interaction restrictions, level order, action-budget implications, and three required deliverables are clearly specified.
- Inputs: Complete — The input archive supplies readable documentation, templates, and a valid statically linked Linux x86-64 executable with no stated network or package dependency.
- Toolchain: Complete — The supplied executable provides the documented CLI on a suitable Linux x86-64 machine; the proprietary license does not create an access barrier because the required software is included.
- Reference output: Complete — Reviewer-only materials contain an environment-generated 100/100 audit, efficient reference paths, authoritative hidden mechanics, and manual evaluation guidance. The paths reproduce all five hidden evaluation goals under the documented mechanics.
- Rubric: Complete — The authoritative environment score, completion records, action counts, resets, failed commitments, exhausted budgets, and diagnostic penalties objectively distinguish full, partial, and failed performance without requiring an exact reference trajectory.

**File and Task Reachability:**
The attachment set is `reachable`, and the end-to-end task is `reachable`. All three manifest attachments were inspected: `ALE_control_lab_v16_task.zip`, `ALE_control_lab_v16_reviewer_ONLY.zip`, and `submission.zip`. Each is a valid, unencrypted ZIP matching its declared byte count, with readable entries, clean paths, no unsafe links or device entries, and modest expansion. The input contains documentation, CSV/Markdown templates, and the expected ELF executable; the reviewer package contains Markdown, valid JSON, and valid CSV evidence; and the self-test contains a valid audit, matching scorecard, and detailed strategy notes. The self-test's successful E1–E4 trajectories also reproduce the protected goals under the reviewer mechanics, while E5 remains incomplete as reported. No submitted text or structured evidence was left unreviewed. The executable's instruction body was not executed, disassembled, or reverse-engineered, as required by safe-review and task-integrity rules; its format and platform metadata, supplied documentation, reference audit, and substantive self-test provide sufficient reachability evidence. No material tooling limitation affected the assessment. A solver can unpack the task on Linux x86-64, interact through the documented CLI, complete calibration and evaluation levels, export the audit, and prepare the scorecard and notes; reviewers can evaluate those outputs through the authoritative score and protected reviewer evidence. License keys, accounts, tokens, and other credentials are not required from the contributor. Confidential, proprietary, or internal material may be evaluated as submitted evidence without requiring additional disclosure.

**Special Screening:**
None

**Recommended Changes:**
The submission provides a well-separated solver package, protected reference materials, and credible difficulty evidence. No changes are required.