> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://dualguard.gitbook.io/dualguard/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://dualguard.gitbook.io/dualguard/security-reviews/findings/how-to-assess-the-validity-of-a-finding.md).

# How to Assess the Validity of a Finding

To be considered as valid, findings must satisfy all listed properties:

* Legitimacy: Identify genuine vulnerabilities in the codebase
* Severity: Gas/QA/Informational issues ineligible for rewards regardless of accuracy
* Documentation: Provide substantial details and proof

### Contest-Specific Guidelines

Two criteria determine finding validity:

1. Official contest specification on the DualGuard platform
2. In-scope code

The protocol team receives a 48-hour kick-off period to clarify ambiguities via Discord. Post-deadline, the updated specification becomes definitive. The protocol team cannot retroactively invalidate submissions through "moving the goalposts" tactics.

### Vague Generalities

Vague claims receive automatic rejection. Examples include but are not limited to:

* asserting potential reentrancy without demonstrating actual vulnerability
* suggesting hash collision risks without proof
* Uniswap `slot0`

Guards must create one of the following to prove system damage:

* a detailed attack scenario proving significant system damage
* a proof-of-concept (PoC)— preffered

### Typically Invalid Categories

Issues commonly rejected include:

* Gas optimizations
* Zero-address validation
* Admin input mistakes
* Front-runner initializer attacks (if redeployment possible)
* UX/design preferences
* User self-harm through blacklisting
* EIP non-compliance without external integrations
* Accidental token transfers
* Reward loss outside protocol design
* View function errors (unless causing fund loss)
* Mock contract problems
* Slippage (unless showing definite loss)
* Out-of-gas scenarios

{% hint style="info" %}
This table provides guidance only; judges retain discretion on final determinations.
{% endhint %}