Leadership and team cards, board and founding prose, an AI persona modelled on a
named individual, contributor and partner entries, and personal correspondence
addresses all named one person. The organisation carries them now.
Other people keep their names. Where a card, a board list or a founding line
named someone else alongside, they stay exactly as they were; only the one entry
was removed, and prose that listed two names now reads with one.
Sample and fixture data uses the placeholder name these tests already use
elsewhere, so the IAM username defect the notes describe still reads as written.
The zoo/yapp MIT notice names the foundation that publishes it.
Bylines, paper authorship, correspondence addresses and the founder blurb under
each post named an individual. They name the organisation that published the
work instead: the brand on posts and pages, the research byline on papers, and
research@ in place of a personal address. Both are what these repositories
already used elsewhere — nothing new was coined.
Co-authors are untouched. Where a paper named someone else alongside, they stay
named; only the one byline changed. Bibliography entries, running heads,
PDF metadata and affiliations move with it, so a citation still resolves to
whoever the cited paper names.
Sample and fixture data uses the placeholder name these tests already use
elsewhere, so no assertion changed meaning.
An audit of all 68 published papers found that 51 were machine-generated in a
three-day window and carry no measurement of a Hanzo system: across the
29-paper product block, 711 numeric claim-sites yielded zero measured values.
They are backdated on the live site to 2024-2025. The defects are not subtle
and a reader disproves them with a browser and a calculator — a paper reports
9.2 million blocks per second, one block per 108 nanoseconds; another reports
8,412,893 jobs processed on a chain that answers net_peerCount with zero, and
a second paper reports the identical figure for a different system; a third
prints a user total its own arithmetic contradicts by 170x. Two papers on
retrieval and inference cite benchmark placements that appear on no
leaderboard.
The site keeps twelve papers. Each is from the human lane, each names its
harness and its box, and several report losses — the engine paper's Vulkan,
ROCm and Metal rows are all below parity, which is precisely why it can be
trusted about the one win it claims. Everything removed stays in git; nothing
is lost, and a paper returns when it can support what it says.
Three of the twelve needed a correction first. hanzo-cloud-economics headlined
3.5M lines of dead code deleted while stating 3.07M -> 1.06M one clause later;
the difference is 2.0M and the paper now says so. hanzo-network-whitepaper
claimed 29.5x storage savings as an observation — it is BitDelta's published
result and is now attributed, and its date no longer precedes the work.
hanzo-unified-tenant-cloud cited HIP-0032, which was deleted with the rest of
the contradicted standards; the concern lives in HIP-0405.
Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
Three defects an audit found in published sources, each fixed at the source.
A control-plane IP was printed in a paper the site serves — hanzo-platform's
deployment section named the cluster's address, and the unified-harness paper
named two. A reader does not need our addresses to follow the argument, and an
attacker does not need to scan for them.
Two defense papers carried 'Approved for public release; distribution
unlimited'. That is a Department of Defense distribution statement, issued by a
review office after a review we have not requested and did not undergo. We may
publish these papers because they are ours; we may not claim a marking that
asserts a federal authority reviewed them.
refutation-driven-perf reported a ROCm decode win of 1.07x. That comparison was
refuted on 2026-07-20: the llama-HIP build it beat was a weak one, and against
a properly built llama on the same gfx1151 box we lose both phases — decode
0.91x, prefill 0.72x. Both are now in the table, marked open, and the two
prose restatements of the win are gone. A paper about refutation cannot be the
last place a refuted number survives.
Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
The *.pdf ignore rule in this repo is commented out and 511 PDFs are already
tracked, so the compiled artifact belongs beside its .tex source rather than
being the one paper you cannot read without a LaTeX toolchain.
Nav link + PDF bookmark still said 'Sovereign vs. Closed' (pre-rename, b314046).
Aligned both to the paper's current title and rebuilt the 196-page bundle so it
carries the corrected ~90% vs-claude paper.
The 'Cost at scale' section claimed cloud spend 'fell approximately 97%',
contradicting this paper's own ~90% ($35K->$3.5K/mo, ~$380K/yr) and the
canonical cloud-economics staging (achieved ~90%; ~97%/$1,200/mo is the
not-yet-reached target). Also matches the sentence's own 'order-of-magnitude'
framing. Rebuilt PDF + synced to site/public/pdfs (deploys to papers.hanzo.ai).
- hanzo-vs-claude: prominent 'one engineer on Hanzo stack vs team on Claude' section
(anonymized audit: ~250-900x lower $/LoC) + theoretical mechanism + switch CTA.
- one-pager: cloud-cost aligned to ~$3.5K/mo (~90%, ~$380K/yr) matching the paper;
suite count 16->22.
- site: real Hanzo mark (@hanzo/logo) in header; PDF embed hides TOC/thumbnail sidebar
(navpanes/toolbar=0); vs-claude card abstract leads with the productivity hook.
- README: added the 6-paper engine cluster.
Machine-checked proofs and automated verification for post-quantum
distributed systems. Covers Coq/Lean4 formalization of consensus
protocols, threshold crypto correctness, and gas determinism.
zeekay
