Overall
A solid trace. You located the ADD site in all three representations and your line and address references are correct, which is more than half the marks and the half most people lose.
15.5 / 20.
Tracing across the representations — 27/35
The source-to-IR step is exact. The IR-to-disassembly step is where you lost marks: you say the pass “removed” the original operation, but the retained IR still contains it as dead code and it is instruction selection that drops it. Those are different agents at different stages, and the distinction is the week 3 finding.
Comparator and convention — 22/25
You named the comparator and the optimisation level. You did not say which counting convention your instruction counts use, so the 115 and 311 figures are unanchored. One sentence would have fixed this.
What the evidence does not establish — 19/25
Your limitations section is real, not padding, and I was glad to read it. But it stops one step short. You write that the identity holds “for any k” — check it modulo 2³² and say so, because that is precisely the check the A1 spec asks for and precisely the gap week 6 ends on.
Citation and legibility — 13/15
Clear, well-organised, every claim cited. Two figures have no caption.
For A2
Carry over one habit: before you write a count, write the convention beside it. You will need it — A2 compares graphs recovered under two different conventions and the marks are in keeping them apart.