[QUOTE=Madpoo;425403]In my ongoing quest to weed out bad systems (well, bad tests), I'm toying with another revision to my query.[/QUOTE]

And here's a list of 3:1 or more bad/good based on this approach:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35429437 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35429437,71,1
35675153 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=35675153,71,1
35904383 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35904383,71,1
36118051 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=36118051,71,1
36583447 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=36583447,71,1
37237547 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37237547,72,1
45865801 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=45865801,72,1
46101953 6 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46101953,72,1
46189607 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=46189607,72,1
46344919 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=46344919,72,1
50015437 9 2 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=50015437,73,1
50559623 3 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=50559623,73,1
50803771 9 2 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=50803771,73,1
50967491 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=50967491,73,1
51753259 3 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=51753259,73,1
55125053 3 0 3 3 3 3 DoubleCheck=55125053,73,1
55622053 5 0 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=55622053,73,1
55972967 5 0 3 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=55972967,73,1
56829233 3 0 3 3 3 3 DoubleCheck=56829233,73,1
57384337 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=57384337,73,1
58141243 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=58141243,73,1
58229173 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=58229173,73,1
58229179 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=58229179,73,1
58229333 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=58229333,73,1
58229621 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=58229621,73,1
58232081 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=58232081,73,1
58374847 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=58374847,73,1
58407949 4 0 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=58407949,73,1
58773223 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=58773223,73,1
59136449 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=59136449,73,1
59136463 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=59136463,73,1
60470117 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=60470117,73,1
60489577 5 1 11 4 11 4 DoubleCheck=60489577,73,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;425404]And here's a list of 3:1 or more bad/good based on this approach:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35429437 3 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35429437,71,1
35675153 4 0 3 0 3 0 DoubleCheck=35675153,71,1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took these, the first two.

I will queue this one:
DoubleCheck=35904383,71,1

I queued 2:

DoubleCheck=36118051,71,1
DoubleCheck=36583447,71,1

Although not directly related to strategic double checking, the user known as Amy Pond seems to have a box doing Cat 1 DC that is... unreliable. Madpoo, could you please investigate? Is there anything we can do about it?

Taking the following:

[code]
37237547 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37237547,72,1
45865801 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=45865801,72,1
46101953 6 0 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=46101953,72,1
46189607 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=46189607,72,1
46344919 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=46344919,72,1
[/code]

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;424883]38194643 unverified.[/QUOTE]

It did not match unfortunately: [url]http://mersenne.org/M38194643[/url]
Titan Black 2048K FFT. Max error: 0.25781.

If I had noticed the "high" error level I would have forced the next FFT probably.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;425427]Although not directly related to strategic double checking, the user known as Amy Pond seems to have a box doing Cat 1 DC that is... unreliable. Madpoo, could you please investigate? Is there anything we can do about it?[/QUOTE]

Unreliable in what way?

Of the 4 DC exponents that user has right now, the CPUs working on them have okay track records (well, one of them must be newer since it has no returned results so far).

All 4 of the assignments have checked in recently (today) and were only assigned recently (last few days).

Taking

[code]
50015437 9 2 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=50015437,73,1
50559623 3 0 2 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=50559623,73,1
50803771 9 2 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=50803771,73,1
50967491 4 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=50967491,73,1
[/code]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;425551]Unreliable in what way?

Of the 4 DC exponents that user has right now, the CPUs working on them have okay track records (well, one of them must be newer since it has no returned results so far).

All 4 of the assignments have checked in recently (today) and were only assigned recently (last few days).[/QUOTE]

As in, almost all the recent results I could see were bad.

I see that [U]i5-4670-main[/U] has a poor record, and two results pending double check.
That computer seems to have had 5 matches this year.

I understand the concern, but what recourse might there be? If the user-of-record isn't on the Forum, then it seems that PrimeNet is the only other source of contact information.

But think about it. The "Microsoft Tech Support" scam is regularly derided here. If one got an email from GIMPS saying [B][I]"your computer is doing bad things[/I][/B]," how much credence might it get? At least, this is a named user, with a variety of machines running Prime95. This suggests someone a bit more knowledgeable. Such a person might respond well if approached carefully, if contact is even possible.

EDIT: The last screeny is just to say that bad spells do happen. 2014 was rotten for me, until I replaced a failing PSU. The 2015 failures came in the course of trying to find successful hardware settings for running CUDALucas