Verification of the Duverney (1995) reconstructions

../

reconstruction_grade: Grades the fresh-context review of the two complete rewritten proofs of Duverney 1995: pass on every criterion of the whole-claim contract, one bookkeeping change required, with the grader's own check of the core.

reconstruction_review: Fresh-context whole-claim review of the two complete rewritten proofs against the note and Duverney 1993: statement fidelity, every essential deduction and both external premises; verdict refutation-failed.

statement_fidelity/: Accepted independent comparison of the frozen Duverney extraction and E0250 specialization with the primary note; full proof review is excluded.

---

The reconstruction review records a fresh-context whole-claim review of the complete rewritten proofs on the Lemme and Théorème pages: statement fidelity against the page images, every essential deduction rederived, and both external premises checked at their stated reading depth. Verdict: refutation-failed, relative to Euler's pentagonal number theorem, not proved here, and to Théorème 2 of Duverney 1993, whose statement and proof were checked. The reconstruction grade is the distinct grader's record: pass on every criterion of the whole-claim contract, one bookkeeping change required (the landing commit in the review's Revision paragraph), and the grader's own check of the core. The review's Revision paragraph names that landing filing by its date and time, 2026-09-17T09:49:34Z, the filing that first adds the three reviewed pages, beside the review-time state and the retained snapshots, so the grader's required change is applied. With both filed, the reconstruction is independently accepted compilation proof coverage in the review's scope.

The focused statement-fidelity record is an earlier, separate review: a fresh-context comparison of the campaign's extraction pages of this note (frozen as its subjects/*.txt copies, at a revision of the campaign's working repository that is not an ancestor of this history) and of their exact Problem 250 specialization with the three page images. Its verdict is refutation-failed for that frozen extraction, disclosed proof outline and exact specialization; it awards no tier and does not extend the reconstruction review above.

Extracts reproducing the paper's text are not held, since no license on record permits redistribution.