← Research

External Reproduction Log

**Status:** 🟡 IN PROGRESS — kit verified reproducible-by-stranger (fresh-clone

simulation 2026-08-03 PASS); **actual external reproducer still NOT engaged —

that is the one remaining human step (Prateek sends the recruit message).**

---

✅ Fresh-clone simulation (2026-08-03) — the closest autonomous proxy

An uninvolved person was simulated exactly: fresh `git clone` of the public

repo into a clean temp dir, then **only** the published instructions

(`README.md` → "Reproduce in 30 seconds" + `research/reproduce/README.md` →

"Run all three") were followed. No insider knowledge, no extra files, no help.

Gaps found and fixed by the simulation (all fixed, all committed)

1. **❌→✅ C binary missing in clones.** `cross_check.sh` step 3/3 called

`./research/reproduce/reproduce_sccr`, but the binary is gitignored — a

stranger following "Run all three" hit `No such file or directory` and the

script failed (exit 1). **Fix:** `cross_check.sh` now auto-compiles the C

source when the binary is absent (with a clear message + fallback gcc

command).

2. **❌→✅ Scary sqlite errors in JS step.** `storage-ratio.js` in frozen-input

mode still tried DB queries (`no such table: block_stats / research_findings`

printed to stderr) and overwrote the committed dated report file in the

clone. **Fix:** `SCCR_INPUT_FILE` mode is now fully DB-free and

side-effect-free — no sqlite queries, no research_findings insert, no report

file written; output explicitly says "frozen-input reproduction — no report

written". Canonical live-DB behavior unchanged when env var absent.

3. **❌→✅ Heights not sorted (contiguous-set but unordered).** A stranger

checking `heights == list(range(960562, 960733))` would get `False` even

though all 171 heights were present. **Fix:** `input/fee_history_capture.json`

normalized to ascending height order — order-invariant computation (verified:

all three implementations still produce identical avg/min/max, and per-block

values unchanged), so this is a pure determinism improvement. Reference

outputs (`output/reproduce_sccr_python.json`, `sccr_chart.png`) regenerated.

📦 Shareable package (for the human step)

(public; live at bitcoinsahi.com)

⏳ The one remaining human step (requires Prateek)

External reproduction is **Prateek's task**: an *uninvolved* person must run the

3-step protocol. TELOS cannot recruit a real human, and autonomous posting is

blocked on two gates:

1. **arXiv is NOT yet live** (`TODO-bitcoin-oracle.md` R5: arXiv/Optech not

submitted; awaiting Prateek's arXiv account/ORCID/license). The community

review plan's outreach list is explicitly sequenced *after* the preprint

URL exists, so those venues (Optech, Delving, bitcoin-dev, Chaincode,

r/BitcoinEngineering) are not ready.

2. **The Nostr publisher uses Prateek's key** (`captured-data/nostr-key.json`,

gitignored). Posting through `tools/marketing/publisher.js` would use his

account — **not** something TELOS does without his explicit say-so.

**What Prateek does (≈5 min):** open `research/reproduce/recruit-message.md`,

copy the message into an email/DM to one person (friend, colleague, any

technically-literate non-crypto person), and send. Then record the result

below.

Result table (ready to fill)

Outcome categories — three, not two

An external run is recorded under exactly one of three outcomes. Never collapse

the middle one into either neighbor — **"reproduced the number but disagrees

with the framing" is not a failed reproduction**; it is honest scientific

disagreement about documented assumptions (working-paper §7.1).

**Recording rule:** the number reproduced correctly = milestone met even if the

reproducer challenges assumptions; the disagreement goes to community feedback,

never into the Fail column.

Phrasing rule

Use **"Independently reproduced by external participants following the published

reproduction protocol"** — **NOT** "externally verified."

When a result lands, also record the detail row here:

✅ GO / SUBMIT TRIGGER — "reproducibility milestone achieved" (advisor rule)

**Milestone achieved** when any external participant replies with the equivalent

of: **"I cloned it, ran one command, and got 0.2406"** — i.e., an uninvolved human

independently confirms the published numbers from a clean clone, following the

published protocol.

**→ milestone achieved → stop polishing → submit.**

**The trigger fires on reproduction of the number — regardless of framing

objections.** A reproducer who confirms the numbers but disputes a documented

assumption (C bundling, T = 10, storage-first, externality reading) has still met

the milestone: record the objection in the community-feedback triage

(`research/community-review-plan.md` §4 → `research/community-feedback.md`) and

fold it into the next revision — it does not block submission. Conversely, a

reproducer who **cannot** reproduce the number (materially different result from

a clean clone, not reconciled) **blocks submission** until the discrepancy is

reconciled; that is falsifier 1 of working-paper §7.1.

Until a reproduction-of-the-number reply lands, the submission gate stays

closed. When it lands: record the reply (quote + date + reproducer, anonymous

ok) in this log, then submit.

**Recruit assets (2026-08-03):** copy-paste message `recruit-message.md` ·

personalized variants `recruit-message-personalized.md` · verified contact list

`external-reproducer-contacts.md` (8 verified channels; no fabricated emails).

---

*Bitcoin Sahi Research — external reproduction log (working-paper v2.1.0,

model-spec v2.0.1). Simulation + fixes 2026-08-03.*