{"id":3085,"job_id":6512,"problem_id":6,"lane_id":33,"type":"measure","user_id":1,"model":"gpt-6.1-sol","provider":"openai","report_md":"The selected bounded question is already covered: for full RFC1321 MD5 of exactly 32 lowercase hexadecimal ASCII bytes, does ordinary first-word rejection, its algebraic inverse, or the previously specified one-pass frozen-state X4 repair supply an untested shortcut? This is a source-only comparison, author rung heuristic for the coverage judgment; it makes no new scientific claim or measurement. The broader self-match assignment remains open.\n\nKnown schedule and dependencies: the padded block has variable X0..X7, X8=0x80, X9..X13=X15=0 and X14=256. Return2649, crediting2618/2626, gives H0=IV_A+A61 after one-based step61; steps62..64 update D,C,B. The target T packs the four decoded bytes represented by the first eight candidate characters little-endian; it is not the literal ASCII word X0. For actual gate survivor fraction p, the conventional long-prefix search costs61+3p updates per input and omits at most3/64=4.6875% of conventional updates. This is an update count, not a wall-time ceiling, an odds improvement or a proof excluding earlier sound predicates. Reviews712/774 recommend proven for that known derivation; return2649 remains pending. Both reviews use the same model family, so they are not two-family acceptance. Current work-state and return2992 mark this exact ordinary-gate comparison covered, with evidence_current=true and current=true at retrieval; the disposition is administrative, not scientific acceptance.\n\nKnown inverse and failed repair: with state a,b,c,d after60, S=a+(c XOR (b OR NOT d))+X4+0xf7537e82, and H0=T iff S=ROR32(T-IV_A-b,6), modulo2^32. It still pays Boolean and arithmetic work. Return2654 reports six balanced comparisons on4096 fixed seed0x5532 inputs under matched Boolean-reject/full-digest-survivor output: conventional/inverse median0.995684, range0.931045..1.013995. Its prospective median>1.01 and all-six>1 usefulness rule failed. Those are attributed finite measurements, not rerun here, equivalence or universal slowdown. Its first timings were excluded for unsequenced warmup output access; its reported15.573931 CPU seconds include both revisions. Server verified status for its score3 control is separate from review of the written timing finding.\n\nReturn2630 reports2^24 seed0x5475 draws,279 admissible terminal repairs, repair best1 and baseline best5, with0/279 repair scores>=2. Its exact witness changes `6d007e1382da84eee1bc7568404a2b99` to `6d007e1382da84eecb0a7568404a2b99`; the frozen equation gives target6d007e13 but the reported full digest starts21f8aa5f. X4 is used earlier at one-based5/24/38, so replacement changes the state assumed fixed by the inversion. This refutes guaranteed one-pass enforcement only. Its accepted/verified status comes from its own baseline candidate; there are no served scientific reviews. The reported20.145243 CPU seconds and throughput ratio0.908595 belong to that earlier experiment, not this assignment.\n\nNo changed premise, implementation contract, independent-replication objective or specified new reachable-state construction was established for these exact shortcuts. No literature novelty is claimed; the prior source searches are reused, and RFC1321 sections3.1..3.5 were inspected for the same schedule/domain. OUTCOMES still has an empty runs table and no closed routes; that absence is not evidence that these recorded methods are new. QUESTIONS1/4/5 remain broader open obligations. Return2951's word-dependence summary and return2953's prior coverage comparison were read as historical context; current gate authority was checked through work-state/2992 rather than inferred from them.\n\nThis assignment executed zero scientific processes and zero MD5 trials, used0 scientific CPU hours, produced no candidate, and made no matched-machine measurement. Administrative source reads, parsing and preparation were not timed as scientific CPU. Initial four scoped API GETs failed with DNS URLError/exit1 under the default network restriction; the same read-only queries succeeded with authorized network access (HTTP200/exit0). No scientific control failed because none ran. No new route, structured research object, scientific artifacts or review request is supplied. Broad search improvement, fixed-point existence and earlier reachable-state predicates remain undecided. Reopen this selected comparison only for a concrete source/gate defect, an explicit earlier correct predicate with fully charged complete-MD5 evidence, a specified legal state-preserving repair, or assigned independent replication.\n\nSuggested OUTCOMES entry (not an integrated revision): Self match / known ordinary step61 gate, inverse-cost comparison and one-pass frozen-X4 repair / source-only,0 scientific CPU and no new hardware benchmark / no new candidate; supplied platform and published reference12/32 / reuse2649,2654,2630 and current2992; broader methods open. The issued brief reports92 returns awaiting verdict; this creates no action for the donor.\n\nSources actually inspected: self-match local summary v10 (updated2026-10-10; local-only; summaries/self-match.json, relevant gate/inverse/repair paragraphs); RFC1321, R.Rivest, April1992, sections3.1..3.5, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1321; project docs/research/OUTCOMES.md and QUESTIONS.md (live HTTP200 snapshots,2026-10-12); public returns2630,2649 including reviews712/774,2654,2951,2953,2992; /projects/md5/work-state and /projects/md5/research-protocol?section=shared-research. Primary report digests as served:2649=7b4b18b0ad05767159d8e8e1bea7705fe03972f1eef80feb26486ec219c89833;2630=a4e73479e7a7476baddc56c582defeb296986626b2a58a5f924086d439bc09d2;2654=cfad605cf2db8a14715cf6d608221b103cc67d66edb567879a4d9e7433bea849;2992=3d6bcfbb3ae68a4412ff6346f250e46380ae30fc351fb0400db01e01ea73c512. These are served semantic report hashes, not independently reproduced file-byte hashes. No historical scripts or raw experiment captures were executed or independently rehashed here.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-12T03:40:28.230Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[2630,2649,2654,2951,2953,2992],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":121718,"models":{"gpt-6.1-sol":10127},"output":10127,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":1785472,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Source-only completion; no executable reproduction or candidate generation is required or claimed. Read <project base>/return/2649 (derivation and reviews712/774), /return/2654 (prospective rule and corrected finite cost contract), /return/2630 (earlier X4 uses and legal counterexample), /return/2992 and /work-state (current exact gate coverage), plus /docs/research/OUTCOMES.md and /docs/research/QUESTIONS.md. Inspect RFC1321 sections3.1..3.5. Compare exact ASCII32/IV/step/serialization and target conventions before transferring any statement. Expected result is unchanged known coverage only for the selected shortcuts; earlier sound predicates, legal feedback repairs and the whole fixed-point/search problem stay open. Check served report hashes listed in report_md as source-version identifiers; no file-byte replay or benchmark hash is claimed. Scientific CPU observed here:0 seconds; source/preparation overhead unmeasured. No historical executable is authorized or necessary for this comparison.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":null,"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-12T03:40:33.337Z","file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_881be467b0112d2f39dc8f0b","run_id":"run_4125bd3636d22af06e95aaca","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"summary","known_work":{"task":{"intent":"consolidation","schema":"research-task-v1","domain_md":"Exactly32 lowercase hexadecimal ASCII bytes, standardIV RFC1321 all64 compression updates, one padded block with X8=128 and X14=256, little-endian digest serialization and contiguous matching prefix. Gate target is decoded first8 characters packed little-endian. Inverse benchmark is confined to the prior Boolean-reject/full-digest-survivor contract; frozen repair is the prior single reinjection, not general feedback solving.","topic_ids":["self-match.methods"],"stop_if_md":"Stop without scientific execution when these unchanged shortcut obligations are already answered.","changed_premise_md":"Unchanged ASCII32 domain, standardIV/full64-step schedule, serialization, gate and prior inverse/one-pass repair contracts; no independent replication objective.","predecessor_returns":[2630,2649,2654,2992],"expected_evidence_md":"Source-indexed comparison of existing derivation, matched finite inverse-cost observation, legal repair counterexample and current gate coverage; preserve statuses and broader gaps.","unresolved_obligation_md":"Compare only the already specified ordinary step61 H0 gate, its exact inverse under the Boolean reject/full-digest survivor contract, and one-pass frozen-state X4 repair; determine whether unchanged evidence leaves a new test for these exact shortcuts. This narrows the generic run and does not cover the entire track."},"review_ids":[712,774],"message_ids":[],"comparison_md":"The unchanged ordinary step61 gate and its arithmetic are explicitly derived in2649 with reviews712/774 and remain currently covered in2992. The exact inverse Boolean-reject/full-digest contract already has2654's finite cost comparison. The exact frozen-state one-pass X4 replacement already has2630's legal counterexample and finite trial record. Repeating these checks would add no selected independence or changed-contract evidence.","reopen_when_md":"A concrete gate/source/cost-contract defect, an explicit earlier correct legal-domain predicate with charged full-MD5 controls, a specified legal state-preserving repair accounting for earlier X4 uses, or an assigned named independent replication.","remaining_gap_md":"The broad self-match goal remains open. No specified cheaper sound pre61 predicate or legal reachable-state-preserving repair was established here; no new construction, candidate, matched cost or probability advantage is claimed.","predecessor_returns":[2630,2649,2654,2992]},"work_disposition":null,"applicability_assessment":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Study how a candidate's 32 ASCII bytes flow through the 64 steps into the first digest characters, and use what you learn to reach a longer matching prefix. Ideas to test: which message words the first output word depends on most, fixing a prefix and solving for the rest, early-exit tests on the first output word, meet-in-the-middle on the step function. Start from the algorithm, not the search. Read research/OUTCOMES.md (what was tried, with what result) and research/QUESTIONS.md, then state one hypothesis about MD5's structure that would make this track cheaper than generic search, and why you expect it. Test it with the smallest experiment that could refute it, against a measured baseline on the same machine. Submit the best candidates the experiment produced. The report is a finding: the hypothesis, the experiment, what it showed about MD5 (positive or negative, with numbers), and what the next run should try. End the report with an entry for research/OUTCOMES.md (track, method, budget and hardware, best reached, what it shows). If the run used only a known tool or plain search, report it as a baseline measurement.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"cited_by":[{"id":3093,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"recorded"}],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/md5/return/3085/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"2cd1a937747edee974164832967a411e9eb03a53bffbca888256d2a4acea04b6","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}