Yes, you got the pun, bravo, 2 geek-points for you.
However, you lose 20 geek-points because FLAC and wav are not bit-to-bit identical. They are both lossless encodings and correct implementations will preserve the input material bit-to-bit.
Yes, I understand how the FLAC codec works. My comment was pointing out that FLAC can either represent the codec or the binary and that in neither case one can say that FLAC is bit-to-bit identical, since in the former case you're referring to the specification and in the latter case you are referring to the binary executable.
One can say that FLAC is a lossless compression codec and as such it is homomorphic to the original raw binary encoding and the WAV encoding.
It might be pedantic, but saying "flac is bit-to-bit identical to wav" is just wrong. To me it sounds like saying: "The speed limit is 80 kilometers".
However, you lose 20 geek-points because FLAC and wav are not bit-to-bit identical. They are both lossless encodings and correct implementations will preserve the input material bit-to-bit.