From 3cf359df8eea8d4c340206cb02186108f767016e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: YurenHao0426 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 21:50:39 -0500 Subject: =?UTF-8?q?paper=20v2.37.2:=20=C2=A77=20=C2=B62=20soften=20the=20r?= =?UTF-8?q?eference-impl=20extensibility=20claim?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The v2.37 §7 ¶2 said "the protocol code in Appendix A is structured to make these extensions a configuration change rather than a new experimental design." On re-reading Appendix A, this overclaims — Appendix A describes the reference implementation as organized around 4 claim types but doesn't explicitly say "extensions are configuration changes". The "configuration change rather than new experimental design" framing is aspirational, not verified. Softened to: "The reference implementation in Appendix A is intended to support such extensions at the level of training-recipe and architecture-class configuration so the audit pipeline itself does not need to be re-derived." Now the §7 forward-looking claim only commits to what Appendix A actually describes (claim-organized, four artifact types) plus a modest "intended to support" caveat. Page count: 20 (unchanged). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- paper/main.pdf | Bin 537258 -> 537335 bytes 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) (limited to 'paper/main.pdf') diff --git a/paper/main.pdf b/paper/main.pdf index 631684a..5e3edee 100644 Binary files a/paper/main.pdf and b/paper/main.pdf differ -- cgit v1.2.3