[obstinate]

Seems really interesting. Too mathy for my skillset.

If I may, I propose that the organizers remove the restriction on disassembling the client library or intercepting network connections. This restriction seems like it cannot benefit the organizers, unless the protocol is insecure. People are going to ignore this rule anyway, and you can't stop them or even detect them doing it. So why put it in there? It's only going to generate ill will.

[rer0tsaz]

It's probably insecure, because you don't want to do 75,850,000 sequential evaluations over a network. It would take over a week for a single track with even just 10ms response time.

[obstinate]

Presumably a secure implementation would just batch up evaluations into groups of ten or a hundred. You could make something like this work.

[nullc]

They run over the network (no, I wasn't trying to cheat, but while stracing to debug my own code, I could see it sending for each query).

Each track is split up into 1000 tests; you can run the separate tests concurrently; which more or less eliminates the latency as the largest test permits 'only' about 400k queries.