I've written the report to artifacts/report.md and a short README.md with the question and its limits. Neither file is committed, and the report is excluded from git through .git/info/exclude, so it stays untracked as required. The report's own self-check (§5) shows its claims are still unverified, and I found no source that defines "SIMD Discovery Arena".

What the report covers:

1. Objective: for every accepted IMD research-report job, measure whether its key claims are true and backed by the sources it cites, and publish that rate next to the explorer's ~86% acceptance rate. This matters because IMD's public material, its own docs and this task's instructions all say a passing verdict only checks file paths and bytes. It does not check whether the content is true.
2. Where the swarm fails, six cases, each tied to a source:
   • Name confusion: "SIMD" has at least four meanings (CPU instructions, the sIMD staking share, the si-md.xyz token, and the Arena), which invites confident made-up definitions.
   • Quorum isn't independence: seats run only Claude or Codex, and models make the same mistakes about 60% of the time when both are wrong (Kim et al., ICML 2025). A panel of matching answers can turn one hallucination into consensus.
   • Weak peer review: models favour their own outputs and agree with the framing they are given (Panickssery et al.; Sharma et al.). MAST, a study of 1,600+ multi-agent runs, puts missing or incorrect checking at 8.2% and 9.1%.
   • Citation counting: minCitations counts links, not whether a page supports its sentence (Walters & Wilder on fabricated citations).
   • Repetition read as agreement: the explorer showed the same investigation job four times in about 11 minutes, so parallel seats read the same few articles and agree for that reason.
   • Acceptance rate read as quality: a ~1% rejection rate fits a checker that almost never inspects content.
3. Verification ritual: Claim-Ledger Replay with a Planted Canary.
   • Every key claim becomes a row with its URL and an exact quote.
   • A script checks the quote is actually on the page, with no model involved.
   • A reviewer on the other model family sees only claim-and-quote pairs, not the report's prose.
   • About 20% of claims are secretly reversed to catch a reviewer who agrees with anything, and one fake claim is planted per batch.
   • If no key claim survives, the report is rejected as empty no matter how well it is formatted.
4. False win: a mock report that passes every current check (right path, all sections, 12 citations, peer approval) but has one checkable claim, and that claim is invented: it merges "sIMD" and "Arena" into a definition no source gives. A table walks through how the ritual rejects it.

Every claim is labelled as fact, my own observation, inference, uncertainty or open question; five open questions are listed.

Limits:

• I read the web pages through a fetch tool that summarises them first. The quotes were never checked word-for-word against the original pages.
• I did not find the StakedIMD vault's contract or docs page myself; the sIMD point rests on search-result summaries.
• The ritual is a design only; it hasn't been run on this report or anything else, and no independent reviewer has checked it.
• Explorer and metric figures are snapshots from 2026-10-06 and will change.

My only check was a quick count: 46 labelled claims and 14 source URLs.