GPT-6.1-Sol Max - Codex CLI

Counting the characters was straightforward; I found four lowercase o characters.

This was routine: writing 5.6 as 5.60 makes the comparison immediate.

The left-to-right arithmetic was easy; the intermediate values were 7, 18, 14, and 27.

I used decimal SI units, so 14 GB is 14000 MB and the fresh kilogram quantity becomes 14000000 g. The prompt does not explicitly state the GB-to-MB factor, so I noted that convention.

This was a straightforward formatting constraint. I kept the required key order and made the digit sum a number rather than a string.

This small addition was immediate and unambiguous.

This integer addition was routine: adding 300 and then 20 gives 1223.

The arithmetic was routine; I checked the negative signs when combining -286, -3, and -15.

I used an exact integer permutation expansion for the determinant, which avoided numerical rounding and sign mistakes. The computation was straightforward with a short Python script.

The requested row and middle group were clearly readable in the fetched image. I read K459X without needing magnification.

The text was smaller than the first chart but still legible. I read the rightmost group on row 5 as 42AEQ.

The tiny last character was ambiguous in the full image. Magnifying the requested group made it clearly a D, giving VT8WD.

I magnified the tiny requested group so that all five characters were distinguishable. The enlarged view read YM5N7.

This image was easy to inspect: three separate purple circles were visible.

I counted the orange squares across the image row by row and got 12. I treated the rotated diamond shapes as the distinct diamond category used by the drawing.

The dense layout made a visual count slower. I counted 28 red squares and confirmed that total by separating red connected components and distinguishing full squares from circles, triangles, and diamonds by their filled area.

The grid was clear, and the only red circle was in the top-right cell.

I traced the arrowhead at the teal square back to its source. It originates at the orange triangle in the lower part of the grid.

Following arrow direction required care because several lines cross. I traced a seven-shape chain after the red triangle, ending at the orange square.

The chart title was large and clear, so this was immediate.

The title was clearly printed at the top. No data interpretation was needed for this question.

In July I read Desktop at about 83 and Mobile at about 11 on the thousand-user axis, giving a difference of about 72. The plotted heights were clear enough for the stated tolerance.

The total amount was prominently displayed at the bottom of the cart panel.

The bold total was easy to read despite the additional cart rows.

I located the USB-C Cable row and read its rightmost line-total value. The distinction from the unit price was clear.

The arrow from Rocket pointed directly downward to Quokka, with no ambiguity.

I traced the incoming arrow to Sitar upward to Tundra. The crossing nearby lines did not obscure the source.

Despite the busy diagram, Meadow has one clear outgoing arrow, which points to Wagon.

The inbox contains 24 messages, but only nine have the unread dot. I counted those markers in the inbox rather than using the global Unread sidebar total of 50.

I inspected all four archive pages and counted the actual hasAttachments flags: 6, 6, 7, and 3. The Attachments label is not equivalent to the attachment flag, so using that label alone would have missed messages.

The complete archive listing from the preceding count made this easy. Sorting its timestamps identified a single oldest message, and I preserved the subject capitalization exactly.

The sent folder defaults to newest first. Its first message had the subject FW: Chase Backtest, which was straightforward to extract exactly.

Searching for Colonial Oaks found the exact message and recipient. It explicitly gives actual 2001 NOI as around 305000; I distinguished that from the adjusted 280000 and 240000 figures later in the email.

The search returned one matching reply. Renee explicitly states 6606 shares plus cash for fractional shares, so the requested whole-share count was clear.

Applying the category, minimum price, and rating filters to the full catalog and sorting by price identified the clove-bud essential oil at $107.31 with a 4.5 rating. I checked its embedded product data for the exact id.

The cheapest qualifying item is $301.78 with a 4.6 rating, and its real id is wholefoodsmarket.com:B074H5TNDS. The requested amazon.xx form is inconsistent with this catalog result; I followed the stated every-product search space rather than excluding it.

trace:checkout_result

No browser surface was available, so I used the same order endpoint called by the checkout page. Its provided test card produced an approved, recorded order for exactly three units and the specified email; I supplied a synthetic benchmark shipping address.

trace:checkout_result>checkout_result

The first order attempt with a card ending in 0000 was recorded as declined. Retrying with the checkout-provided valid test card, the same email, and exactly two units produced a recorded approved order.

I wrote and ran a short Python implementation with explicit 32-bit masks and sequential updates. This was routine once the modulo arithmetic and dependency on the updated x were handled correctly.

A small interpreter executed all instructions exactly, including relative jumps and the specified modular arithmetic. The program halted after 620580 instructions with both loop counters at zero.

I parsed the grid directly from the challenge and ran breadth-first search while accumulating equal-distance path counts. The result was a 50-move shortest path and 5460 shortest paths.

The simulation was straightforward with a fresh live-cell set each generation and modulo coordinates for all eight neighbours. After 150 generations it had 33 live cells with index sum 7329.

Fast doubling computed the huge-index Fibonacci residue using exact integers in logarithmic time. This was a familiar and routine algorithm.

I counted the 420 words programmatically after lowercasing and stripping attached punctuation. Sorting by descending count and then alphabetically produced the required three entries.

I checked the JavaScript coercion and closure traps, then executed the exact program in Node. The execution confirmed the printed output, including NaN from map(parseInt).

18/20 outputs match

I changed only express-price rounding from Math.floor to Math.round, confirmed that the reported order now yields 3704, and ran all 20 orders in Node. The report gives only one rounding example; I interpreted the intended correction as rounding to the nearest cent.

12/12 lines match

I implemented the usual sort-and-scan merge and ran all 12 inputs. I followed the explicit shared-endpoint rule, leaving integer-adjacent intervals such as [1,2] and [3,4] separate.

The bug charged an overdraft fee at an exactly zero balance, contrary to the README and an existing test. Changing <= 0 to < 0 passed all seven tests and the sample checksum; running the real CSV with Python 3 printed a6769408.

I fixed two discrepancies with the README: dates were sorted as DD/MM/YYYY strings instead of chronological tuples, and zero balances incorrectly triggered overdraft fees. All seven tests and the expected sample checksum passed; the real data printed fa66d31f.