ASI 2030, a studio in the RISCON family, publishes synthetic records of an imagined path to artificial superintelligence between late 2026 and the end of 2030. In each record an AI system makes a judgment and a human auditor gives it one of the four opinions of financial auditing: unqualified, qualified, adverse, or a disclaimer of opinion. None of the records reports a real event, and the developments they describe are the studio's scenarios, not forecasts made here. This paper reads the eleven records on alignment verification that fall in the studio's two branches for 2029 and 2030, and asks how the record set uses the auditor's opinion to frame a judgment it cannot fully check, and what it says would change that opinion.
The finding is that the opinions are sorted by what the auditor could rerun. Partial reproduction earns a qualified opinion; a rerun that contradicts the judgment earns an adverse one; where nothing can be rerun, because a log, a method or an operating condition is out of reach, the auditor disclaims. No verification record in the studio's library map carries an unqualified opinion. The conditions for changing an opinion also part by branch: the first branch mostly writes tests with thresholds, while the second mostly records errors already found, or tests that cannot be run, with no procedure to act on them. The paper adds to the debates on algorithmic auditing, on what an audit opinion communicates, and on scenarios as instruments for thinking rather than predictions.