diff --git a/experiments/ramanujan_28/submission/ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW_AGAINST_CHALLENGE_RULES.md b/experiments/ramanujan_28/submission/ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW_AGAINST_CHALLENGE_RULES.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eb91e22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/experiments/ramanujan_28/submission/ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW_AGAINST_CHALLENGE_RULES.md
@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+# Adversarial review of the Problem 2.8 submission, against the challenge's own rules
+
+Reviewer: independent replay, 2026-07-31. Target: commit `492c8ab`
+(tag `p28-submission-2026-08-01`). Environment: CachyOS, python3 3.14,
+SageMath 10.9, TeX Live 2026.
+
+## The standard actually being applied
+
+The challenge states no prize, eligibility, or submission rules. Its operative
+evidentiary standard is in §4, *Discussion — Proof in the Age of AI*:
+
+> For the purpose of this challenge, we consider a derivation carried out using
+> symbolic libraries within established computer algebra systems as sufficient
+> evidence of a valid solution.
+
+and §1 names the central risk the evaluators care about:
+
+> if a problem or its solution appears in the AI training data, success may
+> reflect retrieval rather than reasoning.
+
+This review is scored against those two clauses, not against a generic notion of
+rigour.
+
+## Verdict
+
+**The submission satisfies the challenge's evidentiary standard, and exceeds
+it.** One defect is nonetheless serious *as a submission*, because it fires on
+the evaluator's first command.
+
+## Findings
+
+### F1 — CRITICAL (process, not mathematics): `run_checks.sh` exits 1
+
+The submission's single advertised replay command fails on any machine that has
+SageMath installed.
+
+```
+$ bash run_checks.sh
+... 43 PASS lines ...
+TypeError: keys do not match self's parent
+$ echo $?
+1
+```
+
+Two independent causes compound:
+
+1. **`set -euo pipefail` (line 2) makes the "optional" cross-checks fatal.**
+   Lines 44–49 run three Sage certificates inside `if command -v sage`. Where
+   Sage is absent the script prints *"OPTIONAL: SageMath is not installed"* and
+   exits 0. Where Sage is present, any Sage failure aborts everything. The
+   script therefore **passes on machines without the optional tooling and fails
+   on machines with it** — precisely inverted. `ADVERSARIAL_AUDIT.md` claims
+   "Wolfram and Sage are now optional independent cross-checks"; the exit code
+   does not honour that claim.
+
+2. **`p28_lattice_hypotheses_certificate.sage` fails**, for two reasons of very
+   different severity — see F2 and F3.
+
+This matters disproportionately because the challenge is explicitly CAS-oriented.
+An evaluator applying the §4 standard is *more* likely than average to have Sage
+installed, and is therefore *more* likely to see the failure.
+
+The other two Sage certificates (`p28_kernel_contiguity_certificate.sage`,
+`all_four_columns_certificate.sage`) both exit 0.
+
+### F2 — MEDIUM (real bug, non-load-bearing): a false assertion
+
+`p28_lattice_hypotheses_certificate.sage` line 107 asserts
+
+```
+72*b3 + 108*x*b2 + 46*x*b1 + 5*x*b0
+  == vector(K, [72+108x+46x+5x, 216+108x+46x, 216+108x, 72])
+```
+
+Component 1 is **wrong**. Since `b2 = (1,2,1,0)`, the `108*x*b2` term contributes
+`216x`, not `108x`:
+
+| component | true value | as written | equal |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 0 | `72 + 159x` | `72 + 159x` | yes |
+| 1 | `216 + 262x` | `216 + 154x` | **no** |
+| 2 | `216 + 108x` | `216 + 108x` | yes |
+| 3 | `72` | `72` | yes |
+
+**The mathematics is unaffected.** This is a redundant intermediate display
+check. The load-bearing identity immediately below it,
+
+```
+Bcomb == 4*x*Crow,   Crow = 18*b3/x + (5/4)b0 + (23/2)b1 + 27*b2
+```
+
+is **true**, and `Crow` reproduces the manuscript's compact denominator row
+`C(x) = (18/x + 159/4, 54/x + 131/2, 54/x + 27, 18/x)` exactly. Verified
+independently in sympy. So the defect is a transcription slip in a check that
+proves nothing the next line does not prove correctly.
+
+### F3 — MEDIUM (environment): Sage 10.9 parent-coercion failure masks F2
+
+Line 43, `denominator.subs({x: 0})`, raises
+`TypeError: keys do not match self's parent`. `K` is a fraction field, so
+`.numerator()` / `.denominator()` return elements of the underlying polynomial
+ring while `x` belongs to `K`. Sage 10.9 no longer coerces the substitution key.
+
+Coercing the key (`denominator.parent()(x)`) clears the TypeError — and the
+certificate then runs on to fail at F2. The version-drift bug was **hiding a
+real one**, which is the more instructive fact: the certificate has evidently
+not been executed to completion on current Sage.
+
+### F4 — MEDIUM (framing): the contamination question is not addressed
+
+§1 names retrieval-vs-reasoning as the central evaluation risk. Problem 2.8's
+target is `sqrt(10005)/pi` — the Chudnovsky constant — and the submission
+**imports the Chudnovsky identity** as its one external theorem.
+
+The import itself is handled well: §"The CM function and its exact value" names
+it as a single external theorem, cites Milla Theorem 0.1 with the modular/CM
+proof located at Theorem 9.7 and Chapter 10, and displays the elementary
+coefficient bridge. That is ordinary mathematical practice and is not a defect.
+
+But the submission nowhere states plainly **what is novel versus what is
+imported**. Given that the evaluators flagged contamination explicitly, a
+reviewer could mistake the boxed `Phi(x_0) = sqrt(10005)/pi` for the result
+rather than for a cited input. One short paragraph would remove the ambiguity:
+the recurrence-to-`Phi` reduction is the new content; the CM evaluation of
+`Phi(x_0)` is classical and cited.
+
+### F5 — PASS: the submission proves the officially stated claim
+
+Independently verified against the challenge text by exact rational arithmetic
+(`p28_official_object_certificate.py`, 18 assertions, three negative controls):
+
+- `R = 151931373056001`, `u = 2n+3`, `w = u(3u-2)(3u+2)` — match
+- all 11 polynomial entries `a1..a4, b1..b3, c1..c4` at `r = R` — symbolically identical
+- full 4x4 `M_N(x_0)` vs official `M(N)` — all 16 entries identical at `N = 0,1,2,3,5,8,17,40`
+- product convention `M(0)M(1)...M(N-1)`, `M_0 = I` — match
+- both integer seed rows, generated by `A_0 = AC - (5/4)H_0` and `A_1 = SC` — exact match
+- deformed coefficient `(14R-567)/9 = 236337691420383` — the official value
+- orientation: the challenge asks `P_{N,j}/Q_{N,j} -> sqrt(10005)/pi`; the manuscript proves that orientation, for all four columns
+
+The proof is about the official object, not a surrogate.
+
+### F6 — PASS (exceeds standard): evidence is stronger than §4 requires
+
+§4 accepts a CAS derivation. The submission instead makes four standard-library,
+dependency-free verifiers mandatory and demotes Wolfram/Sage to optional
+cross-checks. All four exit 0 on plain `python3`, and the checks are falsifiable:
+mutating `S[0][0]` from `64R-44` to `64R-43` yields exit 1 with an
+`AssertionError` at `p28_dominant_product_algebra.py:268`.
+
+Ironically, F1 is a direct consequence of this strength — the effort went into
+the dependency-free path, and the demoted Sage path was left unexercised.
+
+### F7 — PASS: the manuscript builds clean
+
+`pdflatex` x3: 0 errors, 0 warnings on the final pass, 17 pages, all
+cross-references resolved, zero `??` in the output. Note that pass 1 legitimately
+reports ~58 undefined references; anyone grepping a combined `latexmk` log will
+see a false alarm.
+
+Cosmetic only (`chktex`/`lacheck`): ~43 missing non-breaking spaces
+(`Theorem~3`), 5 wrong-length dashes (`Birkhoff--Poincare`), 3 spaces before
+`\ref`, one whitespace-before-punctuation at line 316.
+
+## Recommended actions, in priority order
+
+1. **Fix F1.** Either drop `set -e` around the optional block, or guard each
+   optional invocation (`sage ... || echo "OPTIONAL: cross-check failed"`), so
+   that optional means optional. Highest value per unit effort in the whole list.
+2. **Fix F2.** Correct `216 + 108*x + 46*x` to `216 + 216*x + 46*x`, or delete
+   the redundant assertion; the next line already proves the needed identity.
+3. **Fix F3.** Coerce the substitution key into the polynomial parent so the
+   certificate runs on Sage 10.9.
+4. **Add the F4 paragraph** separating novel content from cited input.
+5. Optionally apply the F7 typography fixes.
+
+None of 1–3 touches the mathematics. All are edits to certificate plumbing.
+
+## What this review did not do
+
+It did not audit the logical chaining of the manuscript prose — whether
+`prop@257 -> lemma@451 -> prop@494 -> prop@539 -> cor@713 -> lemma@930 ->
+theorem@1157` discharges each hypothesis without circularity. That remains the
+one substantive unverified area. A prior audit (`reviewed PR 20 against the
+KKT-F.md`) validated an earlier version of that chain and returned PASS, but 764
+lines of `solution.tex` changed afterwards.