offtarget 0.1.0__py3-none-any.whl

offload/_root/data/findings/reviews/nested--gcc-fortran-pointer-component-alloc-bounds-lost.json

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+{
+ "finding": "nested/gcc-fortran-pointer-component-alloc-bounds-lost.f90",
+ "readers": [
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261112/batch-08",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Mapping r with alloc maps the pointer component through the predefined default mapper, whose association status is treated as undefined; r%a is then mapped separately and attached. The exit sequence (from r%a, then from r) copies the whole structure including the pointer component after detachment. The text does not clearly say what happens to the host r%a pointer or the data when the enclosing structure is copied back after the component was removed, so the observed result may be permitted."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261112/batch-31",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r has a structure type, so its predefined default mapper maps each structure element, including pointer component a, with tofrom (alloc on enter). The extra map(alloc: r%a) raises the reference count to 2; the first exit data only decrements it, the exit data for r removes it and copies back both s and the array. So r%a(1:8) must be 500..507 on the host (sum 4028). No race or restriction is broken."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-v2-20261113/batch-53",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r is mapped (alloc) first, then r%a, whose base pointer r%a already has a corresponding pointer on the device, so the pointee is mapped and attached. The target region only accesses present data and has no race. Exit data of r%a then r detaches and copies back s and the elements, so the host should see 500..507 (sum 4028). tot=504 means the pointee data was not copied back correctly.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-30",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-v2-20261113/batch-90",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r is mapped with alloc, then the pointer array r%a is mapped separately. Whether the Fortran pointer component r%a gets attached to the device copy of its target, and how the exit data from r then restores the pointer, depends on the attached-pointer rules. They do not clearly cover a whole pointer-array component mapped as its own list item after the parent. Four compilers pass, but the spec text does not settle the program.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-48",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 2,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  }
+ ],
+ "prior_art": [],
+ "external": [],
+ "program_sha": "aed18c20a0f62246be73123cb517c0b7e73e822c77a79a8f56f76dce00b413b0",
+ "instructions": "v2",
+ "verdict": "unconfirmed",
+ "why": "Independent readings are uncertain: Mapping r with alloc treats the association status of its pointer component r%a as undefined, and r%a is then mapped and attached separately. Exit data of r%a detaches, and exit data of r later copies back r including the pointer component whose association status the specification leaves undefined, so reading r%a on the host afterwards is not clearly guaranteed.",
+ "adjudicators": [
+  {
+   "run": "adj-20261112/batch-03",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "no",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "map(alloc: r) uses the predefined default mapper, under which the POINTER component a has its association status treated as undefined; r%a is then mapped separately. After r%a is removed, map(from: r) copies the whole structure, including the pointer component whose association status the spec treats as undefined, back to the host descriptor. The text does not guarantee the host r%a stays associated with its target, so the observed sum is permitted. Reading B assumes the reference-count walk preserves the host pointer, which the text does not state. Reading A is closer."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-20261112/batch-05",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 0,
+    "wrong_section": 2,
+    "not_found": 1
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Reading B's reference-count argument fails: the predefined default mapper treats the pointer component with undefined association status, so map(alloc: r) does not map the pointer target, and the target is a separate entry created by map(alloc: r%a). Reading A is closer but also unsettled. After the first exit data removes the target, the second exit data copies r (including the descriptor of a) back, and the text on restoring attached pointers and on the host descriptor at that point does not fix the host values of r%a. The observed values are therefore not clearly excluded."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-v2-20261113b/batch-03",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 3,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r is mapped alloc, then r%a is mapped as its own list item. Section 5.8.3 says an associated pointer list item that is not the base pointer of another list item has its pointer target implicitly mapped, with the pointer as its base pointer. A new list item is created while the corresponding pointer r%a exists in the already mapped r, so the corresponding pointer becomes an attached pointer. The target region accesses only present data. Exit data from r%a copies the elements back and exit data from r copies s back. The host pointer keeps its target when the attached pointer is restored. Reading A holds, and Reading B's doubt is not supported by the text.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-14",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-v2-20261113b/batch-11",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 1,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 3,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Reading A overstates. Mapping r with alloc treats the association status of its pointer component r%a as undefined, and r%a is then mapped and attached separately. Exit data of r%a detaches, and exit data of r later copies back r including the pointer component whose association status the specification leaves undefined, so reading r%a on the host afterwards is not clearly guaranteed. Reading B is closer.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-38",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  }
+ ]
+}

offload/_root/data/findings/reviews/nested--gcc-fortran-root-and-element-pointer-components-ice.json

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+{
+ "finding": "nested/gcc-fortran-root-and-element-pointer-components-ice.f90",
+ "readers": [
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261113/batch-24",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Maps r (with allocatable component nx and pointer a), then component list items through an element of the allocatable array (r%nx(1)%a). Spec 5.2 does not clearly define mapping of a subobject reached through a subscripted allocatable component whose own storage is not mapped; the restriction on structure elements and presence is hard to satisfy here. Legality and any required acceptance are not settled by the text."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261113/batch-68",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "The program maps r (with an allocatable component nx and pointer components) then maps r%a and r%nx(i)%a, elements of structure elements reached through an array element of an allocatable component. The specification does not clearly state that the allocated storage of nx is mapped by map(to: r), nor that r%nx(1)%a is a permitted list item, so the restrictions on structure elements cannot be settled. If legal, an internal compiler error is a bug."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-v2-20261113/batch-32",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "The program maps r (with an allocatable component nx and pointer components) and then maps pointer components and elements of the allocatable component nx in a second enter data. Whether the first map of r also maps the data of the allocatable nx, and whether the element-of-allocatable-component list items r%nx(1)%a are valid and attach correctly, depends on the default mapper rules for allocatable components, which are not clearly stated here. Also tot is mapped tofrom before being defined. An internal compiler error is never desirable, but conformance is unclear.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-24",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-v2-20261113/batch-68",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r is mapped by the default mapper. Then r%a, r%nx(1)%a and r%nx(2)%a are mapped explicitly as pointer array list items whose containing structure is already present, which satisfies the structure-element rule. They do not share storage with each other. Nothing in the spec forbids these list items, so a conforming compiler must compile the program. An internal compiler error is a compiler bug.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-50",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  }
+ ],
+ "prior_art": [],
+ "external": [],
+ "program_sha": "51665b21e160e5fccdda89f349a333a678e058d04ead8df522653e372f2e3d08",
+ "instructions": "v2",
+ "verdict": "unconfirmed",
+ "why": "Independent readings are uncertain: Whether map(to: r) maps the allocated allocatable component nx and its elements, so that the later maps of r%nx(1)%a and r%nx(2)%a attach correctly, is not settled by the text; the allocatable-component rule only says the map may treat allocation status as unallocated. An ICE is undesirable but a required result cannot be established.",
+ "adjudicators": [
+  {
+   "run": "adj-20261113/batch-02",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Both readings find no violated rule, only a lack of explicit text. map(to: r) uses the predefined default mapper, which covers the allocated component nx. The later maps of r%a and r%nx(i)%a are scalar-subscripted structure components with distinct storage; none of the map restrictions is violated, and the restriction on elements of a structure is met since r is already present. Mapping a pointer component with an associated target attaches the pointer. The program is conforming, so the internal compiler error is a compiler bug, as E, F, G and H show."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-20261113/batch-11",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 3,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Both readings are right that the text is unsettled. The map clause allows structure elements as list items, but r%nx(1)%a is a component of an array element of an allocatable component, and the general rule says a variable that is part of another variable (array element or structure element) cannot be a list item unless otherwise specified. Nothing says clearly that this form is allowed or forbidden, so neither legality nor required acceptance can be established."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-v2-20261113b/batch-05",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Reading B overstates. Whether map(to: r) maps the allocated allocatable component nx and its elements, so that the later maps of r%nx(1)%a and r%nx(2)%a attach correctly, is not settled by the text; the allocatable-component rule only says the map may treat allocation status as unallocated. Reading A is right that conformance is unclear, though its tot remark does not matter. An ICE is undesirable but a required result cannot be established.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-45",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-v2-20261113b/batch-09",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Reading B overstates. map(to: r) is followed by map of r%a and r%nx(i)%a, which are elements of a structure already mapped. The structure-element restriction requires a corresponding list item to be present when a different element is already present, and the text does not say whether the allocatable component nx and its elements are present after map(to: r). Reading A is right that legality is unclear. An ICE is undesirable but not shown required to be avoided.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-61",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  }
+ ]
+}

offload/_root/data/findings/reviews/nested--nvhpc-c-pointee-before-parent-in-one-map-list-copy-fault.json

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+{
+ "finding": "nested/nvhpc-c-pointee-before-parent-in-one-map-list-copy-fault.c",
+ "readers": [
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261113/batch-37",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r[0:1] and r->nx[0:1] are separate, non-overlapping storage (the pointee s1 is not part of *r). Base pointer r->nx has its corresponding pointer created by the r[0:1] mapping on the same construct, so it is assigned a device address and becomes an attached pointer. The device then reads r->nx->a validly; tot=10+1628=1638. Pointer not modified. Some ambiguity about attachment ordering within one construct, hence moderate confidence."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261113/batch-56",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r is a scalar pointer that is the base pointer of mapped list items, so it is firstprivate. r[0:1] maps the struct and r->nx[0:1] maps the pointee; r->nx has base pointer r->nx whose storage is created in the same construct, so on entry the corresponding pointer is attached to the corresponding list item. Accessing r->v and r->nx->a on the device is then valid. No restriction is violated since the two list items do not share original storage."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-20261113b/batch-01",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "yes",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Standard deep-copy pattern: r[0:1] maps the struct and r->nx[0:1] maps the pointee with base pointer r->nx, whose storage is in the new list item r[0:1]. On entry both are created, so the corresponding pointer r->nx is assigned the device address and becomes attached. The two list items do not share storage, no race, tot=10+1628=1638. The device kernel must therefore see a valid r->nx; the illegal address is a compiler or runtime bug."
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-v2-20261113/batch-42",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "The program maps r->nx[0:1] before r[0:1], so the attachment of r->nx depends on the mapping of the enclosing struct in the same construct. OpenMP 6.0 requires attachment after all storage blocks are mapped, so tot=1638 is required there. The 5.2 text only attaches if a corresponding pointer exists on entry to the region, so under 5.2 the device r->nx may keep the host address and the illegal address is arguably permitted.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-59",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 2,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "run-v2-20261113/batch-95",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "uncertain",
+   "result_required": "no",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "r->nx[0:1] is mapped before r[0:1] on the same construct. The attached-pointer rule applies when a corresponding pointer for the base pointer r->nx exists upon entry to the region. Here r->nx lives in r[0:1], which is created by this same construct, so the rule does not clearly guarantee attachment. The device r->nx may hold the host address, so acceptance is not clearly required and the observed illegal address is not clearly a bug.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-55",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 0,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  }
+ ],
+ "prior_art": [],
+ "external": [],
+ "program_sha": "4bf96f45458e819c9e1b33ed210c0903dfb76ca4a12eb1eed0da2e0f63c4ef94",
+ "instructions": "v2",
+ "verdict": "contested",
+ "why": "An independent reading finds the result not required: r->nx[0:1] is mapped before r[0:1] on the same construct. The attached-pointer rule applies when a corresponding pointer for the base pointer r->nx exists upon entry to the region. Here r->nx lives in r[0:1], which is created by this same construct, so the rule does not clearly guarantee attachment. The device r->nx may hold the host address, so acceptance is not clearly required and the observed illegal address is not clearly a bug.",
+ "adjudicators": [
+  {
+   "run": "adj-v2-20261113/batch-01",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 1,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "Reading B is closer. OpenMP 6.0 performs attachment when a corresponding pointer exists after all mappable storage blocks are mapped, so r->nx is attached whatever the clause order and tot=1638 is required. OpenMP 5.2 requires a corresponding pointer to exist upon entry to the region. Here r[0:1], which holds r->nx, is created by the same construct, so 5.2 does not clearly require attachment. Reading A's doubt about legality has no basis: no restriction is violated.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-48",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 2,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  },
+  {
+   "run": "adj-v2-20261113/batch-13",
+   "model": "claude-sonnet",
+   "instructions": "v2",
+   "batch_decoy": "caught",
+   "legal": "yes",
+   "result_required": "uncertain",
+   "quotes": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "wrong_section": 0,
+    "not_found": 0
+   },
+   "program": {
+    "ok": 2,
+    "not_found": 0,
+    "contradicted": 0
+   },
+   "reasoning": "The program has no restriction violation: both r->nx[0:1] and r[0:1] are mapped on the construct and the pointers are not modified. Reading A is wrong to doubt legality. Whether the device r->nx is attached to the device copy of nx depends on the version. OpenMP 6.0 performs attachment once all mappable storage blocks are mapped, so the order of the two map clauses is irrelevant and tot=1638 is required. The 5.2 text conditions attachment on a corresponding pointer existing upon entry to the region, and r->nx is created by this same construct, so 5.2 does not clearly require it. The case names both versions, so acceptance is required only under 6.0.",
+   "verifications": [
+    {
+     "run": "verify-20261113/batch-41",
+     "model": "claude-sonnet",
+     "batch_decoys": "caught",
+     "refuted": false,
+     "false_claims": [],
+     "quotes": {
+      "ok": 2,
+      "wrong_section": 0,
+      "not_found": 0
+     },
+     "program": {
+      "ok": 1,
+      "not_found": 0,
+      "contradicted": 0
+     }
+    }
+   ]
+  }
+ ]
+}