**Overall Verdict:** Accept — The task is complete, professionally scoped, objectively evaluable, and reachable, with only routine evaluator-hardening issues.

**Completeness Check:**
- Instruction: Complete — The deployment, successful registration, user-plane validation, and controlled authentication-failure outcomes are explicit.
- Inputs: Complete — Parameter worksheets, evidence templates, path contracts, and safe laboratory-data guidance are supplied; upstream software is appropriately part of the declared starting state.
- Toolchain: Complete — The workflow uses legally obtainable open-source software on a feasible single-machine Ubuntu environment.
- Reference output: Complete — Sanitized contextual evidence, explicit limitations, expected artifact contracts, and evaluator-only dependencies are clearly separated.
- Rubric: Complete — Binary hard gates cover required files, core health, registration, ordered signaling, GTP-U traffic, failed authentication, capture validity, and evidence reconciliation.

**File and Task Reachability:**
Attachment classification: `partially_reachable`. Task classification: `reachable`. Both uploaded archives were inspected, including every member: the input manifest, output contract, README, task description, four YAML worksheets, result manifest template, five JSON evidence templates, evaluator and test source, evaluation contract and documentation, dependency declaration, extracted report, reference claims and audit, seven PNG figures, and three PCAP fixtures. The ZIP byte counts match the manifest; CRC tests passed; entries were unencrypted regular files with safe relative paths and modest expansion. JSON parsed successfully, text encodings were readable, PNG dimensions and visible contents matched their audit descriptions, and each PCAP had a valid little-endian PCAP header with two internally length-consistent Ethernet records. No content was left unreviewed. Submitted programs were inspected statically and not executed. `tshark` was unavailable in the review environment, so protocol-level fixture decoding and the evaluator self-test could not be independently run; this is a reviewer-tooling limitation rather than a submission defect. Solver inputs and evaluator/reference materials are distinctly packaged, and the end-to-end path from deployment through logs, captures, structured summaries, and binary evaluation is viable. 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 a screening label; public-benchmark status was not externally searched because that is outside the permitted evidence boundary.

**Recommended Changes:**
The submission correctly replaces weak screenshot-only claims with fresh logs and packet-level evidence requirements. No material contributor revision is required. Before production scoring, routine evaluator hardening should anchor the `0% packet loss` check so it cannot match `100% packet loss`, require affirmative ping replies rather than any `icmp_seq=` text, reject negated core-status lines such as “not running,” and initialize the authentication-failure template with `registration_succeeded: false`.