FForge Outcome Delivery
Starship Build Engineering System

Auditor Challenge

← Back to outcome

Auditor Challenge — starship-build-engineering

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: B
  • Trust Score: 80/100
  • Verification: PASS (18/18)

Global challenge questions

  1. What evidence supports this? Every metric maps to proof/CLAIM_EVIDENCE.json → proof/evidence/verification-report.json, produced by node verify.mjs 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-build-engineering), or any claim without a source in CLAIM_EVIDENCE.json.
  6. Has anything been simulated? Yes — results use a synthetic/internal benchmark (DISCLOSED_SEAM).
  7. Were any shortcuts taken? 4 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

  • Takt time = available / demand (480 min / 8 = 60 min) = takt=60 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Theoretical min stations = ceil(work/takt) = ceil(500/60) = 9 = total=500, min=9 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Exact balance: 4x30min chain @ takt 60 -> 2 stations, 100% efficiency = stations=2, eff=1 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Vehicle balance respects precedence, station<=takt, min<=N<=ops = viol=0, stations=11, underTakt=true — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • **Line efficiency identity = work/(stations*cycle), 0<eff<=1** = eff=0.757576, recomputed=0.757576 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Line balancing is deterministic (identical stations & efficiency) = 11==11, 0.757576==0.757576 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Throughput = available / bottleneck (480/60 = 8 units) = tp=8 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Parallel stations for a 130-min op @ takt 60 = ceil(130/60) = 3 = n=3 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • CPM exact: A(3),B(4)->C(2) => duration 6, critical path B,C = dur=6, path=B,C — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • CPM vehicle flow: lead time 56 h, critical A,B,E,F,G, slacks D=14 C=2 = dur=56, path=A,B,E,F,G, D=14, C=2 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Process capability exact: [9,10,11], spec 7..13 => mean 10, sd 1, Cp 1.0, Cpk 1.0 = mean=10, sd=1, Cp=1, Cpk=1 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._
  • Normal CDF anchors: Phi(0)=0.5, Phi(1.96)~0.975, symmetry, erf(0)=0 = Phi(0)=0.5000000005, Phi(1.96)=0.9750 — source: verification-report.json#/checks; status: SUPPORTED. _Could another engineer reproduce this number from node verify.mjs? Yes, deterministically._

Open objections (must be resolved or disclosed before CERTIFIED)

  • None. All challenged claims are supported by evidence.

Disclosed seams (auditor-acknowledged limitations)

  • DISCLOSED_SEAM: The Starship build model in src/vehicle.mjs (operations, times, weld samples, tolerances, part counts) is NOTIONAL, self-authored engineering data — NOT SpaceX proprietary data, as-built process sheets, or measured production figures.
  • DISCLOSED_SEAM: No physical hardware, fixture, weld, or station was built or measured; all results are computed from the model only.
  • SIMULATED: The "synthetic benchmark" quantifies line-balancing skill on the notional model; it is not a claim about any real production rate or factory.
  • ASSUMPTION: Process-capability fallout assumes the measured feature is normally distributed and the process is in statistical control.

_Generated by tools/forge-proof.mjs at 2026-06-25T22:23:34.506Z. The Proof Layer has final authority over this challenge; it may not be edited to suppress objections._