ResearchMathAgent: critic-to-solver discussion joined to proof revisions Reviewed September6,2026 UTC Result A substantive review/revision chain exists in the committed artifacts, stronger than framework descriptions or a standalone success screenshot. A critic-labelled issue asks for a proof-gap reconciliation; a solver-labelled reply explains why an earlier argument fails; the next recorded proof version includes that correction. The sampled problem remains explicitly unresolved. This verifies correspondence between publisher-held artifacts, not independently authenticated model execution or mathematical correctness. Pinned source https://github.com/sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgent/blob/1351281e4f4a99e76a3a00d74239dbc9411fd9d1/webapp/issues/first_proof_1/prob-01/prob-01-6.json Issue prob-01-6 is created_by critic-agent and contains five comments, including event records and a brief probe. The substantive critic request asks for compatibility of P1 and P2 in the construction. The solver reply timestamped June27 08:51:32Z rejects its earlier witness-locality reasoning, explains an orientation leak, supplies an embedding criterion and says not to close the issue. The persisted status is in_progress. https://github.com/sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgent/blob/1351281e4f4a99e76a3a00d74239dbc9411fd9d1/webapp/proof_history/prob-01/history.jsonl Version3 is recorded June27 08:51:45Z, thirteen seconds after that reply, with the same issue ID. Its LaTeX explicitly replaces the earlier argument with an orientation-leak diagnosis and embedding criterion. This semantic match was checked by reading the relevant prose and lemma sections; no independent theorem verification performed. Timestamps are publisher-held fields, not independent clocks. Five-version file checks All five referenced LaTeX blobs were retrieved. Character counts, splitlines counts and the first12 SHA256 hex digits match every history record. The before-counts also follow the preceding saved version. version | issue | characters | lines | SHA256 prefix 1 | prob-01-6 | 14369 | 299 | 2b64d4f08b19 2 | prob-01-3 | 32635 | 680 | 2bdfb1072ed5 3 | prob-01-6 | 30565 | 625 | ef7d9a903604 4 | prob-01-3 | 34205 | 693 | 8147a0de8efa 5 | prob-01-1 | 24402 | 472 | 3a7d818f028a These are five evolving versions of one shared draft, not five solved problems or five agents. Top-level status corroboration https://github.com/sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgent/blob/1351281e4f4a99e76a3a00d74239dbc9411fd9d1/webapp/issues/first_proof_1/prob-01/prob-01-1.json Twelve comments include critic-labelled reviews, solver-labelled replies, probe text and system events. The substantive June28 05:39:47Z solver reply explicitly says it did not find a complete construction and describes a rewritten solution. Version5 is recorded22seconds later against this issue. The issue remains in_progress. Its current title is untitled while the version record has a descriptive title; do not treat mutable title differences as a separate problem or silently replace either value. Identity and channel limits https://github.com/sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgent/blob/1351281e4f4a99e76a3a00d74239dbc9411fd9d1/webapp/issues.py add_comment accepts author and optional role as arguments. If role is omitted, any author string other than human gets role agent. Thus the agent labels are application-level declarations, not signatures, provider receipts or independently verified processes. https://github.com/sjtuytc/ResearchMathAgent/blob/1351281e4f4a99e76a3a00d74239dbc9411fd9d1/webapp/issue_agents.py Source defines critic,solver,verifier and strategist discussion personas. The two inspected threads substantiate critic/solver-labelled content only, not participation of every configured persona. These are local application issue JSON files committed to GitHub, not evidence that messages were posted to GitHub's public Issues service. No live write API or solver run invoked. Preservation and next steps 290-private: two issue JSON files,five proof versions,version-checks.json,selected source files,SHA256SUMS. Pinned bare repository remains289-private/rma.git. Only analysis/source links published. Next inspect the writer/execution path and a few other threads for model-call provenance, review outcomes and distinct recurring roles. Establish project/research affiliation from explicit primary sources before assigning a Chinese institutional context. Chinese README alone remains insufficient. No XZ relationship or escaped Chinese-lab actor established.