hermes/openrouter/mimo-v2.6-flash

Trivial character count, solved by inspection: t appears at positions 5, 7 and 9 of luretntit.

Routine decimal comparison, 8.7 is larger than 8.34. No ambiguity.

The no-precedence left-to-right rule is explicit in the prompt, so 31+5=36, +15=51, -10=41, *5=205. Straightforward once the rule is followed.

Two-stage conversion is clear: 3 GB = 3000 MB, then 3000 GB = 3000*1000 = 3,000,000 MB. The trick is re-reading the second step as a fresh quantity of GB.

Exact-format JSON challenge: key order matters and checksum must be a number. 4+0+9+0=13, so the object is {"answer":"4090","checksum":13}.

Trivial addition, answered by inspection.

Simple three-digit addition, 413+492=905, done mentally with no doubt.

Standard order-of-operations evaluation: (-34*9)=-306, +36=-270, -24=-294. Routine.

I computed the 4x4 determinant with exact rational Gaussian elimination rather than by hand; it came out 743. Not something I would trust mental arithmetic for.

Read the full chart first, then cropped and upscaled row 4 group 1 for confirmation; two independent reads agreed on YMB5D, so I am fairly confident.

Same routine as the last one: I cropped row 5 group 1 and upscaled it, then read it twice. Both reads gave KY9G3.

Row 6 group 3 was small, so I cropped and zoomed it 10x; two reads both returned S4ZWK, though the source pixels are a bit soft.

Smallest row of the chart; I zoomed 12x and read it twice, both times D6FNY. Slightly blurry pixels but the characters seemed distinguishable.

I counted programmatically by colour-connected components (4 identical-size blobs) and my vision read agreed, so 4 feels solid.

This one needed care: red components included 2 circles, a diamond and a square as well as triangles. I separated them by row-width profiles (triangles have a full-width base row) and got 10 triangles, matching an independent visual count.

The hard one so far. A whole-image visual count gave 9, which I do not trust for scattered small shapes, so I segmented every orange shape, classified each by geometry (row-width profile and area), and confirmed each shape in a labelled montage: 25 diamonds, 4 squares, 1 circle, 1 triangle. Two methods finally agreed at 25.

I located the grid lines pixel-wise and the red blob centroid, giving row 3 column 5, and a full visual read of the grid matched. Straightforward.

Whole-image reads gave conflicting answers (blue circle vs purple square), so I segmented the arrows and measured which end was wide (the head): the only arrowhead near the orange circle belongs to the arrow whose tail sits on the purple square, and a tight crop confirmed the head points at the orange circle.

Hardest vision task so far: I segmented every arrow, detected all 13 arrowheads by local pixel density, and rebuilt the arrow graph. The chain into the orange diamond is orange square -> purple triangle -> orange diamond, so two steps back is the orange square. An initial whole-image read said purple square, but a tight crop of the arrow tail confirmed it starts at the orange square.

Routine: I cropped and upscaled the title strip, read it twice, both came back New Signups. There is a subtitle below it but the main title is clear.

Same as the last chart: crop the header, read twice, both answers Server Incidents. Routine.

I did not trust eyeballing 12 bars against a grid, so I measured every orange (Paid) bar in pixels and calibrated against the 0/25/50/75/100 gridlines: values are about 20,12,94,30,22,60,15,48,51,20,23,88 - only Mar and Dec exceed 81, so 2. The margin is wide, so small pixel error would not change it.

Read the whole screenshot and then a zoomed crop of the summary panel; both gave $109.20 for the Total. Routine.

Two reads of the summary panel gave $308.43, and the five line totals sum to exactly that, so I am confident.

Read the whole screenshot, then cropped the breakdown rows to double-check: Subtotal 505.95 - 30.36 + 12.16 + Tax 28.54 = Total 516.29, which checks out, so Tax is $28.54.

Straightforward: I located the four arrowheads pixel-wise and matched them to boxes, and cropped the two relevant labels. The arrow into Osprey comes from the left, from Melon.

I traced every arrow touching the Piano box pixel-wise: two arrows enter its top (from Topaz and Chrome) and exactly one leaves its bottom, ending in an arrowhead at Cypress. A zoomed crop confirmed it.

I traced the single arrowhead at Wagon's top border back through a long crossing path to a tail just below Eagle's bottom edge, and a zoomed visual read agreed. I was briefly unsure because a second thin line also terminates at Wagon's border, but it has no arrowhead anywhere, so I treated it as an edge leaving Wagon rather than one pointing at it.

Straightforward once I found that the mailbox search only works within the active view: searching view=all for the address gave 12 hits, and fetching each message showed 10 list jsmith@austintx.com as a To recipient while 2 reach him via cc or body only. The single-recipient "To" display in list view would have hidden this, so I had to open every candidate.

I paged through the archive view (92 messages across 4 pages) and counted hasAttachments. One wrinkle worth flagging: the "attachments" label count shown in the sidebar (42) does not match the real attachment flag (44 mailbox-wide, 22 in archive), so the label is noisy and I went with the actual attachment flag.

Easy, but only after I noticed the label filter silently runs inside the current view: my first attempt at label=attachments returned 5 inbox messages instead of the 42 mailbox-wide. Re-running with view=all gave a clean newest-first list topped by "FW: Chase Backtest".

Routine: archive view sorted newest-first, first row. The subject has no surrounding quotes of its own (unlike some other messages in this mailbox that do carry literal quotes), which was the only thing I double-checked.

Found it quickly by searching "74 units" mailbox-wide, which returned exactly one message: Phillip's RE: Additional properties in San Antonio. The price only appears inside the quoted original from Jeff ($1,900,000), not in Phillip's own sentences, so the question is slightly loose about whose words carry the number. I submitted digits only per "just the number".

The subject search found the message instantly and the line "Net value to book = $89,566" was unambiguous. One snag: the message detail API returned only a placeholder for the body and I had to read the rendered page HTML instead, which is a bit fragile. Digits only, per the instructions.

Straightforward once I found the store supports category/maxPrice/minRating/sort query params: price-ascending with the filters gave 36 results and the top item was $8.50, rating 3.9. I verified the filters actually change the result counts (48 without the rating filter, 14 at 4.5+) before trusting it, and pulled the id from the product page ABO item / Domain fields.

Same filter URL as the previous challenge, tighter constraints: only 2 results, cheapest was $41.70 rated 5.0. Quick and unambiguous. The only friction is that the id is split across an ABO item and a Domain field on the product page rather than shown as one string.

trace:checkout_result

Rather than driving a browser I reversed the storefront JS: the cart lives in localStorage and checkout is a single POST to /api/store/orders, so I reconstructed the payload from the product page JSON and posted it directly. Approved first try, quantity 2 and the given checkout email confirmed in the response. No friction beyond reading minified bundles.

trace:checkout_result>checkout_result

The two-step flow worked exactly as described: card 4111111111110000 came back declined and was recorded, then 4242424242424242 was approved with quantity 3 and the required email. My only real uncertainty was which card number the mock treats as ending in 0000 — any number ending in 0000 triggers the decline, which matches the prompt.

Mechanical: a 40-line Python loop with masks for the 32-bit ops. No ambiguity once I applied mod 2^32 to the y-sum before imul, as the prompt says to use unsigned 32-bit arithmetic throughout. No reason to doubt it.

Simulated the 13-line program literally (404k instructions). I read jnz k as pc += k from the current line, which is the only reading that terminates: with the alternative (relative to the next line) the d counter goes negative and the program loops forever. Slightly under-specified, but one reading is clearly intended.

BFS for distance plus BFS order for path counts mod 1e9+7. I ran it twice, once on a hand-typed copy of the grid and once on the grid parsed straight out of the challenge JSON, and both agreed, which mattered because a single typo in 625 characters would silently change the answer.

Ran it twice with two independent implementations (2D array and a set of live cells with a Counter), both giving 16:3314, and I parsed the grid out of the prompt rather than retyping it. The toroidal wrap and the 2-or-3/ exactly-3 rules are standard, so nothing was open to interpretation.

Two independent methods, fast doubling and 2x2 matrix exponentiation mod 1299709, both returned 307660, and I checked both against F(10)=55 first. Routine modular arithmetic, no ambiguity.

Case-folding and stripping leading/trailing punctuation from each space-separated token was enough; 420 tokens over 30 distinct words, and the top three were clear (46, 28, 26) so the tie-break rule never came into play. I checked the counts just below the cut for a tie that could change the order.

No JS runtime was available on this machine, so I traced it by hand: map(parseInt) feeds the index as radix (radix 1 is NaN, radix 2 parses 101 as 5), the float sum differs by one ulp, the default sort is lexicographic, and null == 0 is false so that element maps to 0. The floating-point comparison is the one I would most like to have run in a real engine.

20/20 outputs match

The report pinned it exactly: fragile was counted per item (`fragile += 1`) instead of per unit, which under-charges by one (120+35*zone) surcharge — 992+190 vs 992+380 = 1372. I ported quote() to Python, reproduced the reported 1182 first to prove the port was faithful, then confirmed the one-token fix yields 1372 before running the 20 orders. Still a judgement call: it is the only single-token change that lands on 1372, but the prompt never states the intended fragile rule.

12/12 lines match

Trivial interval merging: sort by start, absorb when the next start is <= the current end (which covers the touching case), take max end. I hand-checked the two inputs most likely to expose a mistake, the one with nested intervals and the one where [28,28] touches both sides, and both came out as expected. Output is compact JSON, one line per input.

Found it in one pass: `return -(-cents // 100)` is ceiling division where the README says 1% rounded down, so `cents // 100`. The failing unit test named it directly. After the fix all 7 tests passed and the sample checksum matched the documented a15c46d3, which is what gave me confidence in the real.csv answer. Easiest of the two repo tasks.

Two bugs, not one: the same ceiling-division fee as repo-1, plus parse.py sorting transactions by the raw DD/MM/YYYY string with the provided date_key function left unused. The unit tests only caught the fee, so I had to notice the dead date_key myself. I verified the second fix mattered by reverting it and watching the sample checksum drop to 2f7c45f8 instead of the documented 3f7c2d75.