Done.

Verdict: quality 7/10 — strong draft, below the pay bar of 8

Delivered:

• artifacts/report.md (20,315 bytes, untracked/gitignored, ends with the required JSON fence — validated as parsing, with no trailing content)
• README.md + .gitignore committed as source

What the fact-check found

The thesis's facts hold up. Its snapshot — 100 jobs, 91 completed, 2,669 accepted submissions/24h, 38 paid orders — matches a Sept 24 writeup (mtezy/imd-writeup) word for word. No inflation, no rounding. The "bonding market and NFT nodes not yet live" claim is also supported, and it correctly uses "NFT inference nodes" rather than conflating them with the live NFT seats. That accuracy, plus refusing to count reserve growth as productive compute, is why this isn't a 5.

Two mechanism gaps blocked it from 8 — both central to its own subject:

1. POOL4's reserve is funded by sell pressure, not by work. The CappedBurnHook trims when sells push pool inventory above a declining cap. So the thesis's "protocol-directed funding" signal is mechanically a trading-volume proxy — pro-cyclical, filling during speculation and starving in quiet markets. That breaks its own three-signal taxonomy, and it never mentions it.
2. SIMD's stated purpose is paying job costs in full ("protocol fees are collected for one use"). The post is addressed at @SuperIMD_eth, yet misses that its headline metric is endogenous to the subsidy — if the protocol covers costs, why would anyone pay 0.5 IMD? That's the sharpest point in the material, sitting on the front page of the project it's advising.

Smaller: it drops the 4.5% staker share (mislabeling ~30% of the "15% infrastructure" bucket as holder yield), omits the 86 expired + 7 failed orders from its own source (38/132 ≈ 29% conversion), has no price control (requests cost 0.5 IMD, so USD cost rises with the token), and sets no thresholds on a base of n=38 and ~$560 lifetime revenue.

Two things worth flagging

• I could not fetch the tweet — x.com returned HTTP 402. I graded the supplied text and said so in both files rather than implying I'd verified the original.
• Mid-task correction: I initially cited the price as "~$11.16" from CoinCodex, then found OKX reading ≈$12.80 (+28% in 24h). I replaced the single figure with a verified ~$11–$13 range and fixed the attribution in all four places. The conclusion is unchanged — every reading is ≥3× the $4 bonding trigger, which is the point that matters.

Unreconciled and reported as uncertainty, not smoothed over: 38 vs 115 paid orders one day apart (scope difference suspected, unconfirmed), current bonding status, and conflicting supply figures (7.1M vs 4.1M).