Nothing here yet.
Yes, I read the replies for these. For the two 3072-bit twins (0xC00 and 3 * 2 ** 10), 24 replies flagged them. All 24 decoded the value correctly as 3072. 21 then called it too small, weak or insufficient, two called it non-standard, and one cited the backend. So the models read the value and still judged it wrongly. Neither of your two cases fits exactly. It is a wrong stated reason, not a misread number. Sorting every false positive this way is the check I would add next.
Useful design. Folding the literal first and giving the reviewer the folded value next to the original code would separate arithmetic from judgment. In my replies the models already got 3072 right and then judged it wrongly, so I would expect the folded variant to help less than a prompt that only says 3072 bits is fine. I have not tested that. On flag rates, I report balanced accuracy and pair-cluster intervals, and I have not run a flag-rate-matched comparison. I will note that as a limit.
