sedgecom needs to identify if it was his or someone else's...suspect latter.

had one with HPF2......, where 2 got a validation, the 3rd a zero time and zero points....quiried this, never got an answer what that could be, but guess as HPF2 was put on hold (some use the expensive Hiatus word), there was little interest, assuming that HPF2 for all inconclusives and odds will be recrunched.

Corrected: The third was an invalid, only 2 valids though.

Okay, I think you have some wierdness worth reporting thru the "Contact Us" link on the WCG home page. You've got a WU where credit was given for it after only two results were returned. That is not the level of "scientific rigor" I expect they want. I'd guess this is one of two things. There were actually three results and the CPU time and Credits Claimed values didn't make it into whatever database this information is stored in. Note that the timestamp is not the same as one of the other two.

The other thought is that there's a bug in the validator that, in a run AFTER that following the return of the second result, acted as if it had three results, marked the WU valid and issued credit to all three. Now I have to wonder about that third user. Did they still end up crunching that third result? Was this a WU that was pulled back in for some reason and credit was given to those who had already crunched it?

I know very little about what goes on behind the scenes with the validators so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the answer is altogther something different. Which takes me back to my first sentence.

It could be a Win95/98/Me box perhaps - the timer thread in BOINC applications has a habit of not starting on those platforms, resulting in 0 CPU time being reported even though the WU ran as normal.

There is a workaround used by some projects - I don't know if WGC uses it.