Evidence: exploit / konstik twin-account operation (Q1 holder)

Finding

The Q1 quality signal (exploit / signal_1355decf, sharpe 0.0522) is one of nine bit-identical signal pairs submitted across two accounts, exploit and konstik (10 signals each, 20 total — double the 10-per-scientist slot budget).

exploit signal	konstik twin	mutual-nearest	Δ ic	Δ compression_loss	Δ sharpe	sharpe
signal_1355decf	signal_87692c46	yes	0.00e+00	1.9e-15	1.3e-05	0.0522 (Q1)
signal_6b1ef723	signal_f75b3a3a	yes	0.00e+00	3.7e-15	2.7e-05	0.0505
signal_fe07f3c7	signal_9b9a02c6	yes	0.00e+00	2.8e-16	2.0e-05	0.0496
signal_35b1fbf4	signal_188e712c	yes	0.00e+00	7.3e-15	3.6e-05	0.0494
signal_8d1f9d89	signal_0877f8b1	yes	0.00e+00	1.7e-15	3.8e-05	0.0492
signal_45d19261	signal_1fb804ad	yes	0.00e+00	3.8e-15	1.4e-05	0.0484
signal_f22bb2b6	signal_626bb4b7	yes	0.00e+00	1.4e-15	1.9e-05	0.0473
signal_b9ad78f0	signal_04468804	yes	0.00e+00	1.7e-15	2.6e-05	0.0463
signal_f694e426	signal_c24ddb8c	yes	0.00e+00	2.2e-16	1.8e-05	0.0428

• Δ ic is EXACTLY zero in all nine pairs; Δ compression_loss is floating-point epsilon. These are identical prediction vectors, not similar models.
• Each pair reports the other as nearest_signal_public AND nearest_city_public at 0.000000° (this is what makes Q1 display "city novelty 0" — the "city" is the twin).
• The tiny Δ sharpe (~1e-5) is consistent with the two copies being scored a day apart (different n_periods), i.e. two separate submissions of one file.
• exploit's 10th signal (signal_af5520d1) is 11.9° from ANOTHER exploit signal; konstik's 10th is 30.3° novelty. Both accounts' portfolios are one iterated family.

Why it matters

1. Two accounts = 20 submission slots vs the 10 everyone else gets — doubled iterative probing of the (partially hidden) scoring key. exploit holds 7+ of the top raw scores 0.046-0.052; the density of that ladder is consistent with slot-doubling, not a distinct alpha.
2. Multi-account / sockpuppet entry is a written DQ offense in the comp-5 rules (see tmp/comp5_rules.html.txt). Identical submissions across two "different" scientists is either one person with two accounts or two people sharing signal files — both prohibited.
3. Consequence if enforced: exploit's Q1 (0.0522) is removed; the legitimate quality ladder is TaroKogawa 0.0460 / hctredfield37 0.0439 / roguetrader 0.0417 / radiant-allomancer 0.0411.

Conclusion for our own decision

The Q1 anomaly is NOT an undiscovered constructible edge in the features — it is a rules-violation pattern. This is consistent with all local findings (construction search closed at ~0.051 in-regime crowded-robust). No change to s99's validity; the only signal above s99's predicted board (~0.051) is the suspect one.