The longest-run test's block sizes and class boundaries are fixed constants: K+1 classes chosen depending on M, cases K=3/M=8, K=5/M=128, K=6/M=10000 embedded in the code, and §2.4.2's table setting minimum lengths n = 128, 6272, 750000 for M = 8, 128, 10^4 (SP 800-22 rev 1a §2.4/§3.4).

The longest-run test's block sizes and class boundaries are fixed constants: K+1 classes chosen depending on M, cases K=3/M=8, K=5/M=128, K=6/M=10000 embedded in the code, and §2.4.2's table setting minimum lengths n = 128, 6272, 750000 for M = 8, 128, 10^4 (SP 800-22 rev 1a §2.4/§3.4).

• SP 800-22 rev 1a §3.4 (p. 66), verbatim: "Cases K =3, M =8; K =5, M =128; and K =6, M =10000 are currently embedded in the test suite code."
• SP 800-22 rev 1a §3.4 (p. 65), verbatim: "For the test based on the length of the longest run of ones ν j within the j -th substring of size M , K + 1 classes are chosen (depending on M )."
• §2.4.2's table sets minimum sequence lengths n = 128, 6272, 750000 for block sizes M = 8, 128, 10^4. (The table itself drops from the PDF extraction — the MV1 finding — so these values are transcribed from the printed table, not anchored; recorded honestly.)

Typed, anchored challenges filed against this argument on the graph, with the responses defending or conceding them. A Proposed attack is filed and awaiting human sign-off — it has not yet defeated anything.

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Does the case fit the category?Open

No one has cited this argument yet.

No arguments cite this one yet — no one has built on or contested it. That is an absence of engagement, not a finding of soundness. Build on or contest it on Isonomia to change that.