**Overall Verdict:** Strong Accept — The submission is complete, professionally scoped, safely packaged, objectively graded, and demonstrably achievable within the stated environment and resource limits.

**Completeness Check:**
- Instruction: Complete — The objective, race model, solver behavior, output contracts, runtime constraints, reproducibility requirement, and end state are explicit.
- Inputs: Complete — Eight development scenarios include readable scenario, course, and weather data with documented schemas, units, provenance, processing, and licenses; all records inspected were structurally consistent with no missing fields.
- Toolchain: Complete — The offline Ubuntu, Python, NumPy, and SciPy environment is specified, and the supplied simulator is documented and byte-identical to the evaluator’s copy.
- Reference output: Complete — The protected package contains the reference engine, development and hidden reference plans, reported results, protocol, successful evaluator report, calibration evidence, and negative controls.
- Rubric: Complete — Gates, thresholds, stage weights, scoring formula, hidden tests, development checks, CPU and memory limits, and reproducibility checks are precise and implemented consistently by the evaluator.

**File and Task Reachability:**
Attachment classification: reachable. Task classification: reachable. Both `inputs.zip` and `reference_and_evaluation.zip` were inspected. Their downloaded sizes matched the manifest; both were valid, unencrypted ZIP archives with safe member paths, regular-file entries, valid UTF-8 content, and successful integrity tests. All JSON members parsed, all CSV members were checked for headers, dimensions, malformed rows, and missing values, and all submitted and reference plans passed static structural checks. The review covered `TASK.md`, `DATA.md`, the task contract and examples, all scenario/course/weather datasets, simulator sources, protocol, evaluator and sandbox logic, expert outputs, reference plans, calibration data, and negative-control results. Auxiliary build and test source was inventoried but not reviewed line by line, and no uploaded program was executed. Solver-visible inputs contain development data and times only; hidden scenarios, plans, and reference times are separately staged and sealed for evaluation. The completion path is coherent: implement and package the engine, generate eight development plans and results, then have the evaluator rerun it on 14 hidden and two development scenarios and independently validate and simulate every plan. The supplied expert run scored 1.0, passed every gate and weighted check, and remained within the stated CPU limits. 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. No affirmative evidence supports an AI-synthetic core, a publicly identifiable benchmark, or a synthetic-defect fixture. External public-identifiability was not independently searched under the review boundary.

**Recommended Changes:**
The submission already provides unusually strong contracts, data provenance, evaluator isolation, calibration, negative controls, and successful end-to-end evidence. No changes are required.