FForge Outcome Delivery
AeroForge — Starship Aero & Aerothermal Toolkit

Auditor Challenge

← Back to outcome

Auditor Challenge — starship-aero-toolkit

A hostile external auditor is attempting to invalidate this outcome. Every major claim must survive the following interrogation, answered from objective evidence.

  • Standard: IRS_AUDITOR (assume bad faith; trust nothing without evidence)
  • Certification state: CERTIFIED
  • Evidence Grade: A
  • Trust Score: 93/100
  • Verification: PASS (59/59)

Global challenge questions

  1. What evidence supports this? Every metric maps to proof/CLAIM_EVIDENCE.json → proof/evidence/verification-report.json, produced by py verify.py and traced in proof/EXECUTION_TRACE.json.
  2. What assumptions exist? See proof/LIMITATIONS.md and proof/EXECUTIVE_EVIDENCE.md.
  3. How could this fail? Verification passes today; failure modes are the disclosed seams below.
  4. Could another engineer reproduce it? Yes — proof/REPRODUCE.md lists exact commands; checksums in proof/CHECKSUMS.json pin every input.
  5. What would invalidate this conclusion? A failing check, a checksum mismatch (node tools/forge-proof-verify.mjs --outcome delivery-package/starship-aero-toolkit), or any claim without a source in CLAIM_EVIDENCE.json.
  6. Has anything been simulated? An official benchmark is present.
  7. Were any shortcuts taken? 6 disclosed seam(s); 0 draft doc(s); 0 unguarded marketing phrase(s).
  8. Would this survive expert review? The Proof Layer audit passed with no open objections.

Per-claim challenge

  • isentropic p/p0 @ M=0.5 (NACA1135) = got=0.843019 ref=0.84302 err=9.78e-07 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic T/T0 @ M=0.5 (NACA1135) = got=0.952381 ref=0.95238 err=1e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic rho/rho0 @ M=0.5 (NACA1135) = got=0.88517 ref=0.88517 err=1.52e-07 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • **isentropic A/A* @ M=0.5 (NACA1135)** = got=1.33984 ref=1.33984 err=2.8e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic p/p0 @ M=1.0 (NACA1135) = got=0.528282 ref=0.52828 err=3.38e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic T/T0 @ M=1.0 (NACA1135) = got=0.833333 ref=0.83333 err=4e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic rho/rho0 @ M=1.0 (NACA1135) = got=0.633938 ref=0.63394 err=2.93e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • **isentropic A/A* @ M=1.0 (NACA1135)** = got=1 ref=1 err=0 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic p/p0 @ M=2.0 (NACA1135) = got=0.127805 ref=0.1278 err=3.54e-05 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic T/T0 @ M=2.0 (NACA1135) = got=0.555556 ref=0.55556 err=8e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • isentropic rho/rho0 @ M=2.0 (NACA1135) = got=0.230048 ref=0.23005 err=8.06e-06 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._
  • **isentropic A/A* @ M=2.0 (NACA1135)** = got=1.6875 ref=1.6875 err=1.32e-16 (tol 0.001 rel) — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from py verify.py? Yes, deterministically._

Open objections (must be resolved or disclosed before CERTIFIED)

  • None. All challenged claims are supported by evidence.

Disclosed seams (auditor-acknowledged limitations)

  • High-fidelity CFD (FUN3D/Loci-CHEM/DPLR) and Tecplot/ParaView post-processing are interfaced but NOT executed; this is a lower-order engineering tool.
  • Post-flight reconciliation data is synthetic/representative, not real flight telemetry.
  • Perfect-gas inviscid modeling: real-gas chemistry, viscous boundary layers, transition, and ablation are not modeled.
  • Vehicle geometries are simplified axisymmetric sphere-cone stand-ins, not the actual Starship/Super Heavy OML.
  • Watertight surface is an analytic panelization, not a CAD kernel or unstructured CFD grid generator.
  • MATLAB reader (matlab/load_aerodb.m) is provided against the JSON contract but not executed (no MATLAB runtime).

_Generated by tools/forge-proof.mjs at 2026-06-25T22:39:54.292Z. The Proof Layer has final authority over this challenge; it may not be edited to suppress objections._