The run follows hunter-protocol-v2.md: deepseek-flash, the ranker's top 20
regions per pin, protocol v2 scoring, $8.88 spent.
- Recall: 1/17 (Wilson 0.01-0.27).
- Precision: 2/14 sampled (both true positives need a privileged role, one of
them GoPay's CVE).
- Fixed-side alerts: 1. Benign alerts: 16.
- Stability: 73% of findings differ between two identical runs.
The deciding observation: the ranker's top 20 contained the vulnerable file in 1
of 17 cases, and in that case (GoPay) the hunter detected it. With 4 tool steps
per hunt it cannot search its way to code it is not handed. The result therefore
says less about the model than about scope selection, which sits upstream of the
engine too.
Instrument failures, reported as failures: every FUXA pin and three Directorist
pins (DeepSeek HTTP 400 on every hunt; neither offered a region of its family).
Scorer fix: protocol v2 defines benign alerts and the precision pool over the
CASE FAMILY, but score_v2 pooled every family. The engine's dump emits only the
case family, so its recorded result (21adc40) is unchanged by this; rescoring
reproduces 3 benign alerts and 49 pooled findings.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
Committed before any v2 case is scanned. It has two changes from v1, both chosen by
the maintainer from lessons of the v1 run:
- declared sites: a finding at a `path::function` the advisory names is credited,
as well as one on the fix's changed lines;
- two runs of the vulnerable and fixed pins: detection needs the finding in both
runs, a fixed-side alert in either counts, and the difference between runs is
reported as stability.
evaluate.py takes --population. v2 scans six pins per case and scores with
matches_v2 / score_v2. v1's scoring is unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EmM1j46qgKMh3zqD1QMwEo
