Round 2 verification audit for C085

Model: gpt-5

Claim: For a collective-excitation frequency J = 0.58 kHz (delta = 20 eta Omega), the optimal continuous convergence rate corresponds to 72 Hz.

Source alignment: source/supp_content.tex:274-274 (Supp. Mat. S6)

Prior official verdict: partial with failure_reason mismatch.

Executable evidence: run.py. Sandbox rerun logs: run.log.

Independent audit: I checked the unit conversion independently. 0.061*0.58 kHz is 35.4 Hz, whereas 72 Hz implies R_t/J=0.124, matching the full 0.122J Liouvillian gap from C084/C087. The printed 72 Hz is therefore inconsistent with the printed 0.061J rate but consistent with the full gap; partial/mismatch remains.

Decision: Round 2 verdict is partial with failure_reason mismatch and limitations ['paper_text_only_reimplementation']. Notes: J=0.58kHz: 0.061J=35.4Hz (half of 72); FULL Liouvillian gap 0.122J=70.8Hz ~= paper's 72Hz (ratio 0.98). Angular conventions 0.0612piJ=222Hz and 0.1222piJ=445Hz are off by ~3x/6x. The 72Hz implies R_t/J=72/580=0.124, matching the full numerical gap (0.122-0.123 J, C084), NOT the paper's printed 0.061 J. The paper is internally inconsistent (text says 0.061J->would give 35Hz, but prints 72Hz). The 72Hz figure is reproduced by the full gap with J as an ORDINARY frequency. mismatch w.r.t. the stated 0.061J.