**Overall Verdict:** Accept — The submission is complete, reproducible in substance, and objectively evaluable, with no material blocker identified.

**Completeness Check:**

- Instruction: Complete — Defines the five artifacts, classification priority, date conventions, provenance requirements, and scientific limitations.
- Inputs: Complete — Contains 841 observations across eight stations and 13 analysis contexts, specifications, summary rows, and the qualification codebook.
- Toolchain: Complete — The offline Python standard-library workflow is feasible on one ordinary machine without licensed software.
- Reference output: Complete — All five gold artifacts are present; independent source-to-gold checks found no discrepancies in the ledger, periods, configurations, or sensitivity calculations.
- Rubric: Complete — Weights, partial-credit formulas, numeric tolerances, structural failures, and critical-record gates are explicit and consistent with the inspected evaluator.

**File and Task Reachability:**

Attachments: `reachable`. End-to-end task: `reachable`.

Both `solver_inputs.zip` and `evaluator_bundle.zip` were inspected, including every archive member. Their actual sizes match the attachment manifest; archive integrity, safe entries, UTF-8 readability, and all packaged size/SHA-256 declarations were verified.

Inspected content includes `TASK.md`, `PROVENANCE.md`, both manifests, source inventories, all observation/specification/summary tables, the codebook, all five gold artifacts, evaluator and reference source, independent-verification source, tests, and validation records. No packaged content remains unreviewed.

The completion path is self-contained: derive the five artifacts from frozen inputs, then evaluate them against the separately held references. Uploaded programs were not executed; the reported 78 passing tests and 9,505 checks remain contributor-reported validation. Linux execution and external provenance were not independently verified.

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. The evidence supports a derived audit of documented government observations, not AI-fabricated measurements or deliberately injected defects. Public provenance alone does not establish a public benchmark; external public availability of the derived answers was not verified.

**Recommended Changes:**

The source traceability, explicit scientific boundaries, separated references, and defensive grading contract are substantive strengths. No material changes are required. Optionally qualify the cross-platform byte-for-byte claim or pin output newlines: the JSON and memo contain Windows line endings, while Linux regeneration would normally differ in those bytes without affecting evaluation.