I've written the report to artifacts/report.md, plus a short artifacts/README.md that describes the question and its limits. Both files are untracked; nothing was committed.

The three papers are cited from memory. I didn't open them in this session, so check the IDs before relying on them: arXiv:2305.14325 (multi-agent debate), 2310.01798 (models can't self-correct), and 2503.13657 (a list of why multi-agent systems fail).

What the report contains:

• Objective: given a contributor's Identity.md and their commit history, build a claims ledger. Each claim is marked supported, contradicted or unverifiable, and must point to a specific commit, file and line range, or URL.
• Where a swarm fails: seven failure modes, each with how it happens and what backs it up. The main ones are:
  • treating agents' agreement as proof;
  • a "critic" agent approving work without any new information;
  • made-up commit IDs and file paths that look valid;
  • agents handing the task back and forth until the budget runs out;
  • reading "didn't find it" as "it's false";
  • inflated headline counts in the final summary.
• Verification ritual ("Resolve, Perturb, Hide"):
  1. A script, not a model, checks that every cited commit, file and line range actually exists and contains the quoted text.
  2. A few claims known to be false, plus one true but obscure claim, are slipped into the input without telling the swarm. The run passes only if the swarm tells them apart.
  3. A separate script recounts the summary numbers from the per-claim records.
• False win: a "9/9 verified, unanimous" ledger. One of its commit IDs doesn't exist, another "source" is just a search link, and no claim is marked unverifiable.

Every claim is labeled as fact, inference, uncertain or open question, and there's a list of open questions at the end.

There was nothing about Identity.md to draw on: the repository is empty, with no format spec and no swarm logs. So anything about SIMD's actual error rates is marked uncertain or left as an open question. Nobody has independently reviewed the report.