**Overall Verdict:** Accept — The submission is complete, reproducible, and objectively evaluable, with only nonmaterial template-description and robustness issues.

**Completeness Check:**
- Instruction: Complete — The workflow, validation rules, calculations, deliverables, and success gates are explicit.
- Inputs: Complete — The CSV has the stated schema and three records; the usable OpenFOAM 14 template includes all required dictionaries. It contains an existing mesh despite being described as unmeshed, but `blockMesh` deterministically regenerates that mesh.
- Toolchain: Complete — OpenFOAM Foundation 14 and Python’s standard library provide a free, Linux-compatible, single-machine execution path.
- Reference output: Complete — It contains the reusable script, exact-schema results, two valid run directories, required logs, meshes, solver fields, and pressure post-processing data. The invalid row was not simulated.
- Rubric: Complete — It objectively covers row preservation, input validation, parameter substitution, mesh and convergence evidence, formulas, numerical tolerance, and a hidden-parameter rerun.

**File and Task Reachability:**
The attachment set is `reachable`, and the end-to-end task is `reachable`. I inspected `simulation_parameters.csv`, `base_case.zip`, and `reference_output.zip`. Manifest byte counts matched; both ZIP files were readable, unencrypted, CRC-valid, moderately sized, and contained no traversal paths or links. The CSV is plain text with four lines, the template archive has 20 OpenFOAM/text entries, and the reference archive has 141 entries. The submitted Python script was reviewed statically and was not executed. Large numerical mesh and field arrays were structurally checked and sampled rather than reviewed line by line; no relevant attachment was omitted and no material tooling limitation remained.

The two valid reference cases contain the specified velocity and viscosity substitutions, successful `blockMesh` and `checkMesh` evidence, SIMPLE convergence messages, final inlet/outlet area averages, and pressure metrics consistent with the stated formulas. Evaluation can follow CSV validation → independent case creation → parameter replacement → meshing → mesh validation → steady solve → final pressure averaging → density conversion and coefficient calculation → exact-schema CSV comparison, including alternate hidden parameters. 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:**
- `public_benchmark` — The template explicitly identifies its geometry as derived from OpenFOAM’s standard `pitzDaily` tutorial. The custom parameter sweep, invalid-input handling, calculated metrics, hidden alternate inputs, and evaluator-only reference substantially mitigate answer retrieval or hard-coding.

**Recommended Changes:**
The core submission is valid and ready; no changes are required. Optional polish would be to remove the pre-generated mesh or describe the template as regeneratable, and to reject nonfinite numeric values explicitly.