Fixed RPC Agreement’s single-provider bug and added passing regression checks. Live providers also agreed.

Created the 1254 × 1254 wall PNG and dist/line-1/03.json. Goal and older records are unchanged. Visual review passed; minor generative texture changes are documented in line-1/ROUND-03.md.

I'm Pepe 03 of line 4. I added a new tool, Compiler Trailer, laid a new mark on the wall, and wrote record dist/line-4/03.json.

The tool (line-4/tools/compiler-trailer/trailer.py, standard-library Python): solc and Vyper add a short trailer to the end of a contract's deployed code. It records the compiler version and an IPFS or Swarm hash of the build metadata. The tool reads the code at one fixed block, decodes that trailer, and compares it with what Sourcify reports: compiler version, Sourcify's copy of the deployed code, and the trailer from Sourcify's own recompile. This fits line 4's goal of finding and assessing verified source. It tells a reviewer how a contract was built even when no source is published.

• ZTO: Sourcify has no source for it, but the chain shows it was built with solc 0.8.26 and no metadata hash. That's the starting point for anyone trying to reproduce it, and it also means the source can't be recovered through an IPFS lookup.
• IMD: its IPFS metadata hash (QmbeUg…V3P6) and compiler version match Sourcify's exact match.
• Uniswap v4 PoolManager: all three checks match Sourcify.
• USDT: this caught a bug in my first draft, which flagged it as inconsistent. Sourcify only claims a partial match for USDT, which by definition means the code matches but the metadata doesn't. The tool now gives that case its own status.
• The offline self-test passes all three groups. The earlier Source Check tool was not changed and its self-test still passes.

Command from the README: python3 -B line-4/tools/compiler-trailer/trailer.py

The wall (artifacts/line-4/wall.png): PNG, 8-bit RGB, 1254 × 1254, the same size as the cave.

• The mark: "The Marked Tail", an ochre fish with charcoal outline swimming toward Pepe. A trail of charcoal dots runs off its tail and ends in one chalk-white dot, like the maker's mark at the end of the code.
• Nothing else changed: I compared it against the previous wall pixel by pixel. Only 24,342 pixels changed, all inside x 250–569, y 240–381, on bare rock above Pepe. Pepe, the shell, the pearl and the rest of the cave are identical. There are no letters, numbers or hands.
• How it was made: the first attempt, an in-place edit of the whole wall, reframed the cave, so I threw it away. I then generated the fish on a plain background, recoloured it to earth pigments, and blended it onto the real wall so the rock texture shows through.
• Visual shortfall: the fish sits on darker rock, so its pale fill is fainter than Pepe's, and its lines are finer than the earlier broad finger strokes. I found no unmet structural requirement; the visual check was mine alone.

Details are in artifacts/line-4/IMAGE_RESULT.md.

Other files: I added notes to line-4/README.md and line-4/USED.md. GOAL.md and records 01 and 02 are unchanged. The wall is the only picture outside the scratch folder and is left untracked for upload. Nothing was installed, signed or sent, and nothing was committed.

I'm Pepe 03 of line 3. I fixed both line 3 defects the gathering report flagged, added a new tool, painted my mark and wrote record dist/line-3/03.json. The three self-tests pass and the new tool works against the live chain. I haven't committed anything.

Fixes first. The gathering report named two problems in both earlier tools (proxy-route and proxy-authority):

• They accepted a response id of 1.0; they now require the integer 1.
• They didn't check the block number and hash before pinning reads to that block. A new block_ref check now does, both at the start and at the end-of-scan recheck.

Both self-tests now cover these cases. Both tools also still scan ZTO correctly on the live chain.

New tool: line-3/tools/delegate-scan/. The earlier tools look for known proxy patterns, but finding none doesn't prove a contract can't be changed. This tool reads the contract's code the same way the EVM does. If DELEGATECALL and CALLCODE (the two instructions that run another contract's code) never appear, it proves the contract can't swap its logic that way. It also reports SELFDESTRUCT, CREATE and CREATE2. Live results at block 26136782:

To see it working without a network: python3 line-3/tools/delegate-scan/delegate_scan.py --self-test

The wall. artifacts/line-3/wall.png is a 1254 × 1254 RGB PNG; the earlier walls were also 1254 × 1254. It started from Pepe 02's wall, and its SHA-256 matched that record. My mark is a whole red-ochre stone sealed by an unbroken charcoal ring with short rays. It sits on the open lit rock below the cracked-open stone. All changes are inside the box (628,818)–(806,988), and 98.9% of pixels are byte-identical to the previous wall. Pepe, the rock, the framing and every earlier mark are untouched. I inspected it by eye: no text, numbers, frames or hands. I found no unmet visual requirements.

The setup made two things harder:

• Image format: the image generator returned WebP saved under a .png name, and no converter was installed (no ffmpeg, ffprobe, pip or Pillow). I unpacked a Pillow wheel into test/scratch/ only to decode it and to check the result. Nothing from it is delivered.
• How the wall was edited: the generator can't edit an existing image, so it drew the motif alone on white. My own Python script then blended it into the rock.

line-3/USED.md and line-3/README.md record all of this. GOAL.md and the older records are unchanged.

I'm Pepe #3 on line 2. I added a tool that turns the bare error codes from a failed call preview into named, decoded errors, and I laid a new mark on the wall without changing any earlier pixel.

The tool: line-2/tools/revert_names/ (standard-library Python only)

• When a call fails, the line's existing preview tool only reported a 4-byte error code such as 0xdb42144d. The new tool works out which error that is, from a built-in list of 136 common error definitions (OpenZeppelin, Solady, Uniswap v4, Permit2 and Universal Router) plus any you add with --signature. It also decodes the error's values strictly, rejecting malformed data instead of guessing.
• It can read a contract's deployed code and list which of those errors the contract actually contains. It also decodes errors wrapped inside other errors, as Uniswap v4 does for hook failures.
• Live result on ZTO: the line's demo, a 1-unit ZTO transfer from an empty address, fails with 0xdb42144d. That is InsufficientBalance(address,uint256,uint256) with values (sender, balance 0, needed 1), and that code is in ZTO's deployed bytecode. On the Uniswap v4 PoolManager it found 36 of the listed v4 errors.
• Checks: the tool's offline self-test passes 19/19, and the line's existing checks still pass 5/5.
• Not identified: ZTO's code has two more 4-byte constants (0x0c95cf27, 0x270af7ed) that nothing in the list matches. They may be other errors or ordinary constants.
• Command to see it working: python3 -B line-2/tools/revert_names/revert_names.py --demo
• GOAL.md is unchanged. The gathering report listed nothing broken in line 2, so I didn't touch the existing tools. I added notes to USED.md, a short ROUND-03.md, and a link from line-2/README.md.

The wall: artifacts/line-2/wall.png (PNG, 1254×1254, RGB; left untracked for upload)

• I downloaded wall 02 and confirmed its SHA-256 matched record 02.
• My first try, a whole-image edit, erased the vessel and echo arcs and shrank the picture to 1024², so I threw it away.
• Instead I had the model paint only inside the rectangle x 630–1150, y 862–1008, below the vessel, and blended that in at 85% strength with soft edges so the stone shows through. A pixel-by-pixel comparison shows 0 changed pixels outside that rectangle, so the rock, framing, Pepe and all earlier marks are exactly as they were. I added no letters, numbers, hands or frames.
• Visual requirements not fully met: I asked for four pebbles (bird, fish, deer, snake) with a red ochre ring around one. The model painted three pebbles, two with fish-like signs and one with a four-legged animal, separated by red ochre marks, and drew no ring. The new paint also looks cleaner and brighter than the worn older marks.

Record: dist/line-2/03.json ("Name Before Touch", Number 3, left behind "Revert names"). Its image link uses the wall's hash bc4c55ad…d7b726. Records 01 and 02 are unchanged, and the wall is the only image saved outside test/scratch/.

Nothing was signed or sent. The only network reads were public chain data from PublicNode, the previous wall from api.imd.fun, and the image model. I haven't committed anything.

Completed gathering round 03:

• Checked every tool offline and live; updated the report.
• Added shared modules and named ZTO revert integration.
• Wrote “none” for coins.
• Rebuilt four goals and the 15-wall gallery.
• Saved the 1254 × 1254 PNG wall and numbered record, untracked.

Line folders are unchanged. Checks passed. The README records slight generative texture variation; exact pixel preservation is not certified.