Carlos Porter has translations of USSR-8 and USSR-54 on his website. This is valuable because USSR-54 is in the IMT documents volumes but in German translation only (I think USSR-8 is the same if it's there at all.) http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/ussr8.htmhttp://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/k1.htm
Porter says: "Two of the signatories to USSR-8 (Burdenko and Nikolai) are the same as on USSR-54 (the Kaytn report); the third is the biological quack, Lyssenko."
I googled for info on Nikolai and I found this revealing cope from who else but Sergey.
It is not clear what this is supposed to prove. The metropolitan Nikolai was obviously a figurehead. Burdenko was the head of the commission and there are reasons to think he sincerely believed in the German guilt at Katyn. But all that aside, it's not like the historians are using the Soviet report as some kind of a primary source on Auschwitz. What exactly is the point of this idiotic exercise?
Ah, yes, you are "idiot" for looking into the most important Nuremberg evidence for Auschwitz and pointing out that it's JUNK. Very telling that Sergey doesn't want to actually defend USSR-8 and instead tries to diminish its importance. He suggests there are much better "primary" sources available but doesn't mention what these are. The WRB report, USSR-8, and the Hoess confession are the major early Auschwitz accounts. If those are WRONG then the story has no foundation. I'm not impressed with some new and improved version that's been pieced together by hoaxer historians decades after the war.
Another major strike against USSR-8 is that the camp was liberated in late January 1945 but the Soviets did not prepare their report on Auschwitz until May, after
the American and British camp liberation propaganda. Anne Frank's step sister not long ago said the Auschwitz liberation photos are "fakes" and notes that the camp was covered in deep snow at the time of the actual liberation. None of the photos show any snow because they were taken later in the year. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13053
Additionally, the Soviets actually did publish a brief account of Auschwitz back in early February and unsurprisingly it's totally at odds with what's in their later report. Again, this doesn't inspire confidence in the Soviets. To put it mildly.
Last year, when the Red Army revealed to the world the terrible and abominable secrets of Majdanek, the Germans in Auschwitz began to wipe out the traces of their crimes. They leveled the mounds of the so-called "old"  graves in the Eastern  part of the camp, tore up and destroyed the traces of the electric conveyor belt, on which hundreds of people were simultaneously electrocuted, their bodies falling onto the slow moving conveyor belt which carried them to the top of the blast furnace  where they fell in, were completely burned, their bones converted to meal in the rolling mills, and then sent to the surrounding fields. In retreat were taken the special transportable apparatuses for killing children. The stationary gas chambers in the eastern part of the camp were restructured, even little turrets and other architectural embellishments were added so that they would look like innocent garages.
But even so one can see the traces of the murder of millions of people! From the stories of prisoners, liberated by the Red Army, it is not difficult to make out all that the Germans tried so carefully to conceal. This gigantic industrial plant of death was equipped with the last word in fascist technology and was furnished with all of the instruments of torture which the German monsters could devise.