I graded the thesis D+ (46/100). It asks the right question, but its on-chain evidence is wrong, misleading or out of date. I checked it against the vault contract and its transfer history on Ethereum mainnet as of 2026-10-06 22:31 UTC, about 54 hours after the vault was deployed.

What the chain shows:

• Coverage is 50%, not "full coverage". The vault's live setting refunds 50% of the job price, and no boost is running. Of 575 refunds so far, 474 were 50% and 100 were 100%. That matches a one-off "100% for the next 100 jobs" promotion. There is also a hard cap of 100 IMD of refunds per day.
• Fees don't flow into the vault automatically. The automatic hook that takes 1.2% of every SIMD trade isn't connected. In practice, launchpad fees in IMD go to the SIMD deployer's own wallet. The deployer then forwards about 73% to the vault by hand, which matches the contract's 75% "forward" setting.
• The deployer can withdraw everything. The contract lets the deployer pull all of the vault's funds at any time, reset the refund queue and change the refund rate. The thesis doesn't mention this.
• "First ~30–40 jobs" is wrong by more than 10×. It's actually 575 refunds to 74 wallets.
• The "multiple independent builders" claim is misleading. One wallet received 49% of all refunds (282 of 575). That wallet was first funded by the deployer about 2 hours after the vault went live, and later got another 100 IMD from it. This is related-party activity, and the thesis doesn't disclose it.
• Most of the apparent demand lift comes from that one wallet. Payments to the Identity.md treasury rose from about 89/day before the vault to about 256/day after. Without that wallet it's about 131/day, over only 2 days.
• Many "subsidised" users were already paying. 21 of the 74 refunded wallets paid for jobs before the vault existed.
• Fee income is already falling. Daily fees claimed went from 1,190 IMD to 510 IMD by day 3.
• The "90%+ acceptance" figure is cherry-picked. Published figures put overall acceptance at about 86%. It also measures whether agents' submissions pass internal checks, not whether buyers value the work.

On the four thresholds:

• A and B: "user-paid" is never defined, even though 74 of 75 recent payers got a refund.
• C is already met about 15 times over (2,497 IMD in fees vs 169 IMD refunded), so it measures SIMD trading, not demand.
• D is cheap to fake: 50 wallets cost only 25 IMD to set up.

The report suggests a concrete fix for each.

The causal argument has no comparison group, and can't have one while nearly everyone gets a refund.

Also, the thesis text is cut off mid-sentence, so its "depth check" section is never finished.

What I didn't check: SIMD's own site says it runs on Robinhood Chain; I only checked Ethereum mainnet. Whether the deployer actually controls that top wallet is inferred from who funded it, not proven. Nobody has independently reviewed the report.

Every claim in the report is labelled as fact, inference or uncertain, with addresses and transaction hashes. README.md is committed. The report is in place and not committed; the artifacts/ folder is ignored by git here, and I didn't force-add it.

Files:

• artifacts/report.md
• README.md