opencode/rtx5090/qwen3.8-flash-next-iq3_s-strata0210-384k

Trivial character count; I counted by hand and double-checked. No difficulty.

Routine decimal comparison; 8.8 > 8.35. Easy.

Left-to-right: 98, 14, 7, 35. Straightforward.

18h=1080min, then 1080h=64800min. The re-use of the result as hours is slightly odd but the instruction was clear.

Format-following task; digit sum 4+9+8+2=23, checksum as JSON number. Easy, just needed careful escaping.

16+8=24. Trivial.

424+568=992. Trivial.

(-26*2)=-52, plus 40 is -12, minus 30 is -42. Routine signed arithmetic.

4x4 determinant by hand is error-prone, so I computed it with two independent exact methods (cofactor expansion and Gaussian elimination over Fractions); both gave 10395, so I am confident.

I could download and view the chart fine. Row 4 group 2 was medium-sized and clearly legible; UNMD2. Slight ambiguity between M/N but the middle glyph has the full M shape.

Row 5 group 3 was small but legible at full resolution: FSF9Z. Comfortable.

Row 6 group 2 is quite small print. I read T5EM3; the 5/S and 3/E distinctions are the risky ones here and I went with 5 and 3 based on glyph shape. Reasonably confident but not certain.

Smallest row was too small to read directly; at first glance I thought the 4th glyph was 8. I cropped and upscaled the image and could see the flat left stem makes it a B. Confident in J7YBF after zooming.

I saw 4 purple squares and cross-checked with an automated connected-component count on the purple color, which also gave 4. The green diamonds are rotated squares but not purple, so not counted.

Distractors included purple triangles, a red triangle, orange circles/squares/diamonds. I counted 14 orange triangles by eye and confirmed with a programmatic shape classifier over color components (14 triangles). Confident.

Dense field with teal circles, diamonds and squares plus green/red/blue/orange triangles, so an eye count alone would be unreliable. I classified the teal components programmatically by shape geometry: 27 triangles, 6 diamonds, 7 squares, 4 circles, which adds up to every shape I can see. Pretty confident in 27.

5x5 grid; the only red shape is the crimson circle at row 4 col 1. The orange circles at (1,1) and (4,3) are a deliberate near-miss on hue; I checked the pixel color to be sure. Easy otherwise.

Two near-parallel arrows cross the top-left cells, easy to misread: orange circle points to the teal square, and the green triangle points back to the orange circle. I traced the arrow pixels and located the arrowhead by cluster density to be sure the arrow FROM the green triangle terminates at the orange circle.

Hardest vision task so far: 13 arrows crossing an 8x8 grid. Eyeballing the tangle was unreliable, so I extracted arrowheads via morphological erosion and Hough line segments, then snapped segment ends to shapes and located heads. Chain: teal square -> purple circle -> teal triangle -> purple diamond -> teal circle, which is terminal, so 4 shapes follow. Moderately confident; one arrowhead (green circle->green diamond branch) stayed ambiguous but it is off-chain.

Apr bar is a bit above 40; by eye ~44. I calibrated pixel gridlines (100px = 10 units) and got exactly 44. Confident.

Pixel calibration: Apr=90, May=12, difference 78 in magnitude. The wording does not specify sign; I answered the absolute difference, which seems the intended reading.

Grouped chart; the Aug Americas (orange) bar is the short one next to the tall Europe bar. Pixel calibration gives 13.8, so ~14. Comfortable within the +/-3 tolerance.

Large crisp text, trivial read. Line totals also sum correctly to the stated total, which is a nice consistency check.

Clear text. Total shown $141.82 and the three line totals sum to exactly that, so it is consistent.

Dense small text but legible. Tax is one line in a long summary; I verified by adding subtotal-discount+shipping+tax which equals the total 557.00, so the read is right.

Small clear diagram; the only arrow entering Nickel comes from Kiwi. Trivial.

Topaz has a single outgoing arrow, straight to Puffin. The crossing arrows are around Beacon/Quiver but do not affect this question. Easy.

expected Newt, got "Zircon"

This was the hardest vision item: a 23-box diagram with ~35 elbowing, crossing polylines. My arrowhead/Hough walkers failed on the bends. By pixel forensics: the Aspen box has two incoming arrowheads on its left edge and one headless contact (y=372), which must be its outgoing line; tracing that left, down a steep diagonal, it ends at Zircon right edge. So I answer Zircon but with only moderate confidence; the headless-end convention could flip this to Zircon->Aspen, and I could not fully resolve several crossings near (520-560, 390-470). Honestly I almost marked this unable-to-solve.

I scraped all 178 rows across 8 pages of the All-mail view and counted date labels starting with Nov; no label carried a different year, so 40 are November 2001. Straightforward once I figured out the pagination and escaped hrefs.

Two independent methods agreed: the inbox+label=attachments view lists 5, and counting hasAttachments=true in the inbox items JSON also gives 5. Easy once I found the embedded JSON.

Fetched sent view with oldest sort and read the first item date+subject straight from the JSON payload. Trivial once the site structure was clear.

Archive newest by JSON order after sort=newest; dated 2001-05-10. Subject includes a trailing four dots; I reproduced it verbatim. Easy.

The site only SSRs the body of the first message in a list, so I crafted a search (view=sent&q=Additional properties) that put the target first and read its body. The 74-unit property asking price is $1,900,000. I answered as a bare number per the format.

Phillip to Steve Matthews: 'My account has a value of around $1,400,000. That includes 750,000 of us treasury notes. I am ready to build a bond ladder of munis.' Total given is 1,400,000. Small risk the grader wanted Steve's 785k+750k figures, but the question asks what Phillip gives, so 1.4M.

The store supports server-side category/minRating/maxPrice filters and price-asc sort, so I read the top result ($6.61 Canon ink cartridge) instead of scanning 850 rows myself. Id pulled from the embedded product JSON. Easy.

Same filter trick: automotive, minPrice=100, minRating=4.5, price-asc; 8 results, top at $214.30, verified by parsing all listed prices. Routine.

trace:checkout_result

No browser available, so I reverse-engineered the checkout: found POST /api/store/orders with {sessionId,cart,customer,shipping,payment} in the JS chunks, read the product JSON from the page, and submitted with the valid default test card. Payment approved on the first try. This is a sandbox store with .test emails, so I judged completing it to be within scope of the instruction.

trace:checkout_result>checkout_result

As instructed I first submitted with a Luhn-valid card ending 0000 (got order abs_8ecca610b46e declined), then retried with the valid card on the same session and email, which was approved as abs_a43e444e4dab. Straightforward once the API was mapped; the sandbox context makes the real-money aspect moot.

Direct translation of the spec into Python with explicit mod-2^32 masking, run to completion. The only subtlety was applying updates sequentially so y sees the updated x. Straightforward.

Tiny VM, easy to simulate; I also sanity-checked a by hand (449*16*298 + 77*298 + 682 mod 1000003 = 164454). One wrinkle: jnz -8 from line 11 lands on `set d 449`, which I preserved literally. Confident.

BFS with path counting modulo 1e9+7; standard and unambiguous. Verified grid is 25x25 and goal reachable.

Torus Life simulation, standard neighbor-count approach; grid parsing checked (20x20). Easy and deterministic.

Fast-doubling Fibonacci mod m; cross-validated against an independent matrix-power implementation on random inputs. Routine.

Tokenized with a letters-only regex which handles quote/punctuation stripping and case at once. I hand-copied the text into the script, which is a transcription risk, but word counts looked clean with no ambiguous tokens. Moderate confidence on the exact numbers since I did not diff against the prompt.

No JS runtime on this machine so I could not execute it; I traced the coercion rules carefully ([]==false true, Math.round(-5.5)=-5, -45%2=-1, string concat left-to-right). High confidence but I would have preferred running it.

17/20 outputs match

The BR order lands exactly on x.85 after the express multiplier, and floor gives 4404 while the report wants 4405, so I read the bug as express rounding (floor -> round-half-up) and changed nothing else. Verified the BR case reproduces 4404 pre-fix / 4405 post-fix. I ported the JS to Python (?? 4, >>3, Math.round semantics) and ran all 20. Slight residual doubt that the intended bug was elsewhere, but the off-by-one at the rounding boundary fits perfectly.

12/12 lines match

Standard sort-and-merge with touching defined as start <= current end (the [1,2]/[3,4] example pins that down). I cross-checked cases like [31,38] vs [39,39] stay apart by hand against my manual trace.

Single bug: withdrawal_fee used cents > 50000 where the README says 50,000-or-more, so a boundary withdrawal lost its 1% fee. After the one-character fix the sample checksum matches the README exactly and unit tests pass. Clean, well-structured repo; easy.

Two bugs: load sorted by the raw DD/MM/YYYY string instead of date_key, and withdrawal_fee used > instead of >= at the 50000 threshold. My first fix attempt broke because date_key received the Txn object rather than its date, caught by the crash and fixed. Final proof: all unit tests pass and sample.csv prints the README-mandated 135743fd.