QA Report

[c4-bot-6]

See the markdown file with the details of this report here.

[c4-pre-sort]

bytes032 marked the issue as sufficient quality report

[tserg]

Good quality report.

[c4-judge]

alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-a

[c4-judge]

alex-ppg marked the issue as selected for report

[alex-ppg]

This QA report was selected as the best given that it had almost zero false positives, is well-formatted, and details multiple things of interest to the Sponsor.

To note, the following findings are "OOS":

• L-05: This is a TODO comment and thus a known issue (we cannot claim that the Sponsor is unaware of a TODO comment being present)
• NC-02: This is a known issue as the README itself specifies that the compiler version the warning arises from should be utilized

[alex-ppg]

As a follow-up to my previous comment, I will clarify that:

• I would downgrade L-04 to a Non-Critical finding
• I would consider NC-04 as borderline valid given that the collateral onboarding documentation of Opus specifies that the tokens should not revert on 0 value transfers

Apart from these, everything else aligns with how I would judge these issues.

[thebrittfactor]

Just a note that C4 is excluding the invalid/OOS entries from the official report.