opencode/qwen3.8-27b-sabi-noema.i1-IQ4_K_S

Trivial char count; I counted the t's in motittti carefully and got 4. Routine.

Easy compare: 4.49 > 4.3 because the hundredths digit 9 beats 0. No ambiguity.

Strict left-to-right: 24/4=6, 6/3=2, 2*3=6, 6+8=14. Easy, no ambiguity since the prompt explicitly forbids precedence.

20 km = 20000 m, then 20000 hours = 20000*60 = 1200000 minutes. Straight two-step, easy.

Format task: checksum = 9+0+0+6 = 15. I emitted exactly the JSON object with keys in order. Straightforward, just had to keep the key order exact.

16+8=24. Trivial.

143+400=543. Trivial.

(-9+4)*(20-11) = -5*9 = -45; plus 0; minus 56 = -101. Routine integer arithmetic, confident.

4x4 determinant; I computed it two independent ways (cofactor recursion and expansion along column 1) and both gave 2291, so I'm confident.

Fetched and viewed the eye chart; row 4 group 2 is clearly K6VZS at comfortable size. Easy.

Row 5 group 2 is UFDUP. Read clearly at this size; easy.

Row 6 is small but legible; group 2 reads X5V6R. Fairly confident, though at this size I could misread a digit for a letter.

Row 7 is the smallest row; group 1 reads MJWRZ. The text is tiny and I'm moderately confident — at this size individual strokes blur together.

Counted the green triangles: one top-left and three stacked on the right = 4. Easy, no ambiguity.

Counted orange squares while excluding the orange circles (top-middle, mid-right, bottom-middle). Got 11 by rows. The trap is distinguishing orange circles from orange squares; I tried to be careful.

expected 33, got "37"

Too many shapes to count reliably by eye, so I ran a connected-component analysis: royal-blue pixels split into 42 components, classified by bounding-box fill ratio (diamond~0.51, square~0.99, circle~0.78). 37 were diamonds. I trust the pixel count over my visual estimate.

5x5 grid; the single red circle sits in the second row, fourth column. Easy, no ambiguity.

The red square (row 4 col 1) has a single arrow going up-right to the teal triangle in row 2 col 2. The other arrows in the image connect different shapes, so I traced only the one leaving the red square.

wrong shape

This was the hardest vision task so far — a dense 8x8 arrow graph where my raw vision kept mis-reading which end of each line had the arrowhead. I built the graph computationally: detected every line segment, classified each of the 64 shapes by true pixel color + fill ratio, matched each line's endpoints to the nearest shape, and located arrowheads by end-area (triangle = more black pixels at the head end). Tracing from the teal circle: step1 = green diamond (arrow clearly points into it), step2 = the green diamond's only outgoing line goes up-left to the blue diamond. I'm reasonably confident but not fully certain about the second hop because that particular line's arrowhead was a near-tie in my detection (65 vs 64 px), so I leaned on the visual crop showing the plain end at the diamond and the head at the top.

Trivial — the title is in large bold text at the top of a clean bar chart. No ambiguity; subtitle 'Sessions per month, in thousands' is separate and not the title.

Read Apr off the 'Support Tickets Opened' bar chart. Visually it sat just above 10; I confirmed with a pixel measurement (calibrated against the 0/40 gridlines) which gave 11.9, so 12. Comfortable within the +/-5 tolerance.

Grouped bar chart, Nov: Desktop (orange) ~53-54, Mobile (blue) ~18, so Desktop minus Mobile ~35-36. I measured the two bar heights by pixel (relative gap = 35) and it matched my visual read. Comfortable inside the +/-4 band.

Easy — the cart panel states Total $99.42 in large bold text, and the two line totals (62.30 + 37.12) sum to exactly 99.42, so it's internally consistent. No doubt.

Same pattern as the simple one but with three line items. Total $228.60 shown in bold and it matches the line totals (24.12+36.40+168.08). Routine and confident.

This one had a full order summary with Subtotal/Discount/Shipping/Tax/Total. The question asked specifically for shipping, which is $12.27 — easy to read off, and it reconciles with the total (597.40 - 113.51 + 12.27 + 38.71 = 534.87). Confident.

Tiny clean tree: Guitar->Beacon, Beacon->Nickel and Beacon->Lemur, Nickel->Dingo. Only one arrow points into Lemur, from Beacon. No ambiguity.

Busier tree with a lot of crossing lines at the bottom, but the question only needed Saddle's outgoing edge. Saddle has exactly one line leaving it, going straight down with the arrowhead landing on Rowan. I zoomed in to be sure it wasn't one of the crossing lines — it's the single clean Saddle->Rowan edge.

This was the hardest one — a 25-node graph with tons of crossing edges, so my eyes alone kept getting confused by the tangle. I traced it computationally: detected all box positions, found the single dark arrowhead entering Jasper's top center (x~576), then followed that line pixel-by-pixel. It runs up and to the right and terminates at Marble's bottom edge. I drew the traced line back onto the image to double-check and it lined up exactly with the real arrow pointing into Jasper. Fairly confident it's Marble, though dense diagrams like this are where I'd admit some residual uncertainty.

Fetched the inbox HTML and parsed all 24 rows. Unread messages are marked with a small accent-colored dot (●) prefix on the subject, so I counted rows whose subject carries that marker: 9. The folder nav also shows 'Unread 50' but that's the whole mailbox, not just inbox, so I did not use it. Confident it's 9 for the inbox folder.

The list UI only shows 'Mon DD' without a year, so eyeballing couldn't distinguish May 2001 from May 2002. I pulled the full dataset from the embedded Next.js flight data (ISO dates) across all 8 pages of 'All mail', got 178 unique messages, and counted those with date 2001-05: 14. The year/month histogram looked sane (no other May). Confident.

Collected all 92 archive messages with their ISO dates from the embedded data and sorted descending. Newest is 2001-05-10T13:05, subject 'RSVP REQUESTED - Emissions Strategy Meeting....' — note the trailing dots are literally part of the stored subject, not my truncation (I JSON.stringified it to confirm). Slightly unsure whether they want the dots, but the instruction says 'exactly as shown' and that is exactly how it's stored.

Inbox has 24 messages; sorted by date ascending the oldest is 2001-04-24T17:46 'DRAFT- TAP Power Outage'. Clean single answer, no tie. Confident.

This took real digging: the message bodies aren't in the list data (only 180-char snippets) and there's no JSON API. I eventually found that the server renders the full body into a <pre> when you load the message's own view with its id, and pulled Julieta's 'Muni Bond Ladder' message (quoted inside Phillip's reply). Her signature block lists her direct line as 713-654-0275 (UBS PaineWebber, Houston). Confident that's the direct phone number she gives.

This was Phillip's '(no subject)' message to Steve Matthews in the muni-bond-ladder thread: 'Steve, I need help determining how much margin the short options require. My account has a value of around $1,400,000.' So the total account value he gives is $1,400,000. The full body wouldn't server-render for this message in any folder view (it only resolved via snippet), but the app's own snippet states the value explicitly, so I'm confident. I gave it with the $ since that's how he states the value, though 'just the number' could argue for 1400000.

The store exposes category/price/sort as query params, so I pulled Kitchen & Dining with maxPrice=400 sorted price-ascending and read each card's price and star rating. The cheapest item ($6.98) only rates 3.7, so the lowest-priced one that also meets rating>=3.8 is the $6.99 item at 4.9 stars. Straightforward once I found the filter params.

Same method as the first: Electronics category, maxPrice=800, sorted price-ascending, then scan for the first card whose star rating is >=4.2. The four cheapest items all rate below 4.2, so the first qualifying one is the $10.88 item at 4.7 stars. Routine once the filter params were known.

trace:checkout_result

The checkout is a client-side React form that posts to /api/store/orders, so I read the JS to find the endpoint and payload shape, pulled the product data from the product page, and POSTed a 3-unit cart with the required checkout email and a valid test card (4242...). It approved cleanly and returned order abs_5b1aaee7185a (subtotal 1108.65, total 1209.06). Straightforward once I located the API.

trace:checkout_result

Same /api/store/orders flow. First attempt with a card ending 0000 returned status 'declined' (order abs_a206237d98b9), exactly as the challenge predicted. I retried the same 1-unit cart with a valid test card and it approved as abs_9d9537972a9a, which is the successful order id I reported. Clean two-step recovery.

Ran it in Python with all arithmetic masked to 32 bits (rotl and imul mod 2^32) over 25000 rounds. The 'final value' reads as the two 32-bit registers, so I reported x then y as two 8-digit hex words: x=99008052 (05e6be34), y=579069157 (2283e4e5). Slight uncertainty only on whether they wanted x-y or y-x, but x is listed first throughout so x-y is the natural reading.

Wrote a small interpreter for the machine (set/add/sub/mul mod 1000003, dec, relative jnz, halt) and ran it to halt. There is a nested loop structure (the c-loop jumps back to line 3 which resets d), so it ran about 490k instruction steps. Final register a = 835988. Straightforward once I coded the semantics exactly, including that only add/sub/mul reduce mod (set/dec do not).

BFS from S for distances, then a DP in increasing-distance order to count distinct shortest paths mod 1e9+7. The shortest length came out to 48 (exactly the Manhattan distance, so every shortest path is monotone down/right) and the count is 2874280. Clean and deterministic; no ambiguity in the rules.

Simulated the 20x20 torus (wrapped neighbours) for 150 generations in Python, then counted live cells and summed row*20+col over them. Got 79 live cells and a sum of 17486. Deterministic and unambiguous; just careful to wrap edges correctly.

Used fast doubling for F(n) mod m and cross-checked with an independent iterative MSB-to-LSB doubling; both gave 631516. Easy and reliable — the only care is doing the modular reduction inside the doubling identities.

Lowercased, stripped all non-letter punctuation/quotes from each space-separated token, counted with a Counter, sorted by count desc then alphabetically. Top three are zansha=43, mozan=28, luka=26, and the fourth (quilu=23) is well clear so no tie-break concern at the cutoff. Routine.

Ran the exact snippet: v1 is 'different' (0.1*8+0.2*8 = 2.4000000000000004 does not === 0.3*8's representation), v2 is object/object/string (typeof null, typeof [], typeof typeof 8), v3 is 927 ('9'+9-'7'->92 then +'7'), v4 is 1,-3,-4 (1.5|0=1, Math.round(-3.5)=-3, -12%8=-4). Ran it rather than hand-tracing the float comparison to be safe.

20/20 outputs match

Diagnosed the single bug: total weight summed item.grams without multiplying by qty, so multi-unit orders were under-weighted and got too few 250g steps. The reported IT order (452g x2) went from 2 steps (569) to 4 steps once qty is counted (904g -> 328 + 405 base = 733), which matched the expected value exactly. I applied only that one-line fix and ran the real JS quote() on all 20 orders, spot-checking a couple by hand (DE 328, GB 1051) to be sure.

12/12 lines match

Implemented mergeIntervals (sort by start, merge when next.start <= current.end so touching/overlapping inclusive intervals combine), ran it on all 12 inputs and emitted one JSON line each. Verified a few by hand (the [3,3]/[0,8] case and the [1,1] vs [2,8] non-merge). Routine and deterministic.

Downloaded and unzipped the ledger project. It computed balances and an FNV-1a checksum. The sample didn't match its documented output (got b472c3b0, expected a774b862) and one unit test failed: withdrawal_fee(50000) returned 25 instead of 500. The README says the 1% fee applies to withdrawals 'of 50,000 cents or more', but the code used a strict > so exactly 50,000 was misclassified. Changed > to >=; sample then printed a774b862, all 7 tests passed, and real.csv printed cdc7bbed.

Same ledger project shape but with two bugs and a different expected sample hash (35bfc93c). (1) fees.py used a strict > at the 50,000 threshold so exactly 50,000 paid the flat fee instead of 1% (a unit test caught this); changed to >=. (2) parse.py sorted by (date, amount), which reorders same-date transactions by amount and violates the README rule that same-date entries keep file order; removed the amount tiebreaker so the stable sort preserves file order. After both fixes the sample printed 35bfc93c, all 7 tests passed, and real.csv printed cd308865.