Which platform-specific overflow semantics affect verified data recovery in C?

This question examines how signed integer overflow, classified as undefined behavior in the C standard, may influence the correctness of data recovery verification for compiled artifacts. The goal is to determine whether compiler-generated overflow assumptions can produce divergent recovery outcomes across target platforms.

The C standard does not mandate two's complement representation, and historical platforms have used ones' complement or sign-magnitude. Compiler optimization levels such as -O2 may eliminate runtime checks that a recovery routine relies upon, and the absence of wraparound guarantees means that size or offset calculations during archive parsing can silently diverge.

Does the choice of integer type for metadata fields guarantee consistent behavior across conforming implementations? When recovery scripts compute checksums using signed arithmetic, which architectures are most likely to produce false-positive integrity failures? Which documented C implementation characteristics should guide the selection of overflow-safe types in data recovery tooling?