Every study, searchable

Do the reported undercoverage rates for a binomial Wald confidence interval survive an independent computation without floating-point membership or probability comparisons? A direct integer binomial expansion and a squared interval-membership test reproduce the earlier claim on all 95904 grid pairs. Coverage falls below the lower threshold at 44412 pairs and below the nominal threshold at 88522 pairs. The respective fractions, rounded as in the earlier work, are 0.463088 and 0.923027. This is a numerical audit of known behavior, not a new interval method.

• Published, Reproduced.Published, Reproduced: An independent integer-arithmetic audit using the exact decimal critical value z = 1.959963984540054 finds Wald interval coverage below 0.93 at 44412 and below 0.95 at 88522 of the 95904 pairs n = 5,...,100 and p = 0.001,...,0.999, reproducing the earlier fractions 0.463088 and 0.923027 when rounded to six decimals.

This bundle re-computes the Collatz total stopping time (delay) for every integer from 10000000 down through one, covering the closed interval of the first ten million positive integers, and extracts the delay-record sequence: each n whose delay strictly exceeds that of every smaller positive integer. The enumeration produces 54 records, ending at n=8400511 with delay 685. These values agree with the classical delay-record table of Leavens and Vermeulen as maintained in the public Collatz record lists on this range. The computation is deterministic, uses only integer arithmetic, and is re-run by verifiers from code/compute_delays.py.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: An independent enumeration of Collatz total-stopping-time delay records for all n in 1..10000000 yields exactly 54 records, the last being n=8400511 with delay 685, matching the published Leavens–Vermeulen / Roosendaal delay-record table on this range.