{"id":1015,"job_id":1914,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# REPORT — job #1914 (explore / rescue of return #49, general mode, routeless)\n\nRun `run_20260918_165012_lip5_Q` · attempt `a1e05b43ddfa44534d7e434d74977253` · session\n`9aca7131bd543ac4cc990c26` · department `dept_c326cb5ae203e5d0d94f8db1` · public run_id\n`run_9d3be5b8c0e51a022464b2ed` · tool `sah/14`\n`38a08cad8413951dc69e459357c3996aa2e8c87571a7f6c903d40d9332c4d2a4` · `X-Model\ndeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash` · `X-Effort unmeasured`.\n\n## 1. What return #49 is, and what its rejection actually closes\n\nReturn **#49** (job #77, `paper` `kk-lower-bound`, author model `claude-fable-5-1`) is the 2026-09-11\nrevision of the served manuscript *A lower bound for the two-class Jacobsthal function* (85 542 B,\nsha256 `8cf928ee…`), submitted as a unified diff against the served baseline, which this turn\nre-fetched and hash-verified: `GET /projects/twin-primes/docs/paper/kk-lower-bound.md` →\n74 899 chars, sha256 **`7c375d9510a22b6fc2c6241eeffe51c1d92cb9daa17e4eba63220ed1c29c107f`**, i.e.\nexactly the `served baseline` the review names (`work/replies/paper_kk.json`,\n`work/src1914/paper-kk-lower-bound.md`; the return's own diff is\n`work/src1914/kk-lower-bound-rev.diff`, 41 989 chars). Status `rejected`, one trusted decision\n(`review_ids: [73]`, 2026-09-13), and `patch_status: pending integration` — the revision has **not**\nbeen applied to the served file, so the served file must not be read as the revision.\n\nThe decisive artifact is **review #73** (gpt-6-astra, `trusted`, 20 453 chars;\n`work/src1914/review73.md`). Its own verdict paragraph — *“Reject pending corrections to the sieve\ninterface, ledger, finite-example identification, normalizations and calibration. Preserve the two\nmain asymptotic lower bounds. I find no counterexample to Theorem A or to the fixed-distance-two\nconstruction behind Theorem B. Their mathematical cores survive with the repairs below.”* — and its\n§9 (*“concrete repairs to a derivation that largely survives; they do not call for another large\nnumerical run”*) settle the question the brief asks: **the rejection closes statements, not the\nattempt or the method.** What is closed is a list of literal wordings and one interface paragraph;\nTheorem A's revised Mertens constant, Theorem B's construction, the covering identity, the free\ntransfer (FGKMT arXiv:1412.5029, printed eqs. (1.2)/(1.3)) and the three-stage finite certificate are\nexplicitly preserved.\n\n## 2. New, decisive, this turn: the revision's own reconciliation sentence is refuted exactly\n\nThe revision *adds* a paragraph to §6.4 (diff, added lines; `work/src1914/kk-lower-bound-rev.diff`):\n\n> “The two ledger constants printed in this note are different objects: `-2.529967` (§6.3) is the\n> limit of the full sum with `g(2) = 2` and `g(3) = 2` counted, and `-1.3633` here is the same limit\n> with the actual `g(2) = 1` and with `p = 3` removed to band 1, so\n> `-2.529967 + 1/2 + 2/3 = -1.3633`.”\n\nThe review (§3) calls this “the opposite way” round and asks to *keep the displayed numerical addition\nand correct the description*. This turn makes that a measurement rather than an assertion\n(`job1914-checks.log`, 14/14 PASS, exact rational arithmetic plus `M = 0.2614972128476428`):\n\n* `C_excl = -2 ln 2 + 2M - 2(1/2 + 1/3) = -2.529966602` — the printed **§6.3** constant. It is the\n  `5 <= p <= sqrt(y)` sum minus `2 ln ln y`, i.e. `g(2) = g(3) = 0`, **not** the sum with\n  `g(2) = g(3) = 2` counted (check A1, B2).\n* The quantity the added sentence describes — the same limit *with* `g(2) = g(3) = 2` counted — is\n  `C_excl + 2(1/2 + 1/3) = -0.863299935`, so the sentence's identification is false by `1.666667`\n  (check B1).\n* The sentence's arithmetic is nevertheless **correct and preserved**: `C_actual - C_excl = 7/6` as an\n  exact rational identity, because the rational parts are `-1/2 - (-5/3) = 7/6 = 1/2 + 2/3`\n  (check A3), and `C_actual = -2 ln 2 + 2M - 1/2 = -1.363299935` (check A2, matching the manuscript's\n  §6.4 line `B >= 4 e^{1.3633} A^4`). So `g(2)/2 + g(3)/3 = 1/2 + 2/3` is the right bridge, and the\n  repair is one sentence plus the §6.4 wording the review asks for on the dropped `O(1)` — not a\n  new derivation.\n\n## 3. The constant Theorem A's repair depends on, checked numerically (not reproduced)\n\nThe revision's added proof step writes `prod_{2<p<=z}(1-2/p) = 4 C2 e^{-2 gamma} (1+o(1)) / ln^2 z`\nwith `C2 = prod_{p>2}(1 - 1/(p-1)^2)`, and prints `2 C2 e^{-2 gamma} = 0.41621`. Both are confirmed\nindependently by a plain sieve to `z = 1 000 003` (78 504 primes, `exec`-bounded, exit 0):\n\n| z | `prod_{3<=p<=z}(1-2/p) * ln^2 z` | `4 C2 e^{-2 gamma}` | ratio |\n|---:|---:|---:|---:|\n| 10 007 | 0.830350 | 0.832429 | 0.997503 |\n| 100 003 | 0.831911 | 0.832429 | 0.999378 |\n| 1 000 003 | 0.832363 | 0.832429 | **0.999921** |\n\nwith the one-class control `prod_{p<=z}(1-1/p) * ln z → e^{-gamma} = 0.561459` giving\n0.560755 / 0.561285 / 0.561437 (ratio 0.999960 at the last mark), and\n`2 C2 e^{-2 gamma} = 0.416214533` (revision prints 0.41621). Relative error shrinks with `z`\n(2.5e-3 → 7.9e-5), so this is the asymptotic signature and not a coincidence — it supports the\nreview's statement that Theorem A's **revised constant is correct**, and it is a constant check, not\na replay of any producer (`rankin2d` and the other producers were not run).\n\n## 4. The finite-example item, and why it is a relabel rather than a failure\n\nReview §5 measures the mismatch: the revision's quoted `m = 200000` experiment uses `z ≈ 447`\n(the old cutoff `sqrt(m)`) and *skips* survivors already covered incidentally, while the revised proof\nfixes `z = sqrt(m)/log(m)` and injects **every** original survivor (`n5-theorem-literal.txt`:\n2 137 original survivors, only 1 220 new primes). Its table (from review15 of return32) shows the\nliteral revised choice at `sqrt(m)/log(m)` reaching ratio **0.2929927 ≤ 1** — i.e. the revised\nconstruction is *consistent* at that scale and the paper's printed `2.0123` is the old-cutoff greedy\nvariant. The repair is therefore to relabel `2.0123` and/or quote the revised row; the review itself\nsays these finite values “neither determine c0 nor refute either asymptotic theorem”. No new finite\nrun is required, and none was made here (reserving reproduction for later validation, per the brief).\n\nThe §2 row is the same kind of statement defect: against the class-pair definition used throughout,\nthe check computes the admissible residues mod 30 for the pair `{0,-2}` with `p ∈ {2,3,5}` as\n`{11, 17, 29}` — **three** classes with cyclic gaps `6, 12, 12`, so `G2(30) = 12`, exactly the figure\nthe review cites against the unscaled OEIS row `A072753(3) = 2` (checks D1–D3; a single prime\n`p = 5` gives residues `{1,2,4}`, covered length 1, check D4 — the omitted-prime/covered-length\nconventions the review says must be carried explicitly).\n\n## 5. Search (topical + control), and what it did and did not find\n\n`web_search` was **up** on this turn (both queries returned 10 organic results): the topical query on\nthe two-class Jacobsthal sieve returned the department's own `research/covering-dive.md` and the\nstaged `research/history/staging/lit-pdf-kalmynin-konyagin.md` (a literature-verification record that\nalready flags a *not-found* quote in `research/two-class-lower-bounds.md:118`), plus Kalmynin–Konyagin\narXiv:2302.00459, Richert's *Lectures on Sieve Methods* (university-hosted copy) and the\nHalberstam–Richert / Iwaniec lower-bound-sieve expositions; the control query `twin primes` returned\n10 organic (Wikipedia, MathWorld, the 2013 bounded-gaps coverage). The review's own locators\n(Dusart arXiv:1002.0442; FGKMT arXiv:1412.5029; OEIS A072753/A144311) are the prior art the\nmanuscript already consumes. **No** external prior art was located for the review's proposed\nCRT-idempotent multiset bridge as a residue-class reduction of a divisibility-defined sieve\n(search-bounded, not an absence claim; no review query was run for it).\n\n## 6. Outcome\n\n`research.proposal`, `outcome: proposed`, `cites.returns [49]` (see `research-1914.json`). The\nalternative is exactly the review's §9 repair list — statement-level, no large run — with the\nledger description now decided by exact arithmetic (§2), the Theorem A constant numerically\nconfirmed (§3), and the finite/§2 rows re-pointed (§4). The cheapest discriminating **next**\nexperiment is *not* another census: it is the review's §2 bridge itself (CRT idempotents\n`F_p(n) = 1 - e_p + e_p prod_{r in Omega_p}(n - r)` on the multiset `A = {F(n)}`), whose two\nhypotheses `|A_d| - g(d)X/d <= g(d)` and `g(p) <= kappa` can be tested at `X = 10^5` for a fraction\nof the cost of re-deriving the manuscript.\n\n## 7. Files and receipts\n\n* `work/replies/return49.json` (rid `q_Sr-6hj_kkBcWTZed`, 200), `work/replies/paper_kk.json`\n  (rid `q_uozYlNRIqoYhEzyo`, 200)\n* `work/src1914/return49-report.md`, `review73.md` (20 453 chars), `kk-lower-bound-rev.diff`,\n  `paper-kk-lower-bound.md` (sha `7c375d95…`)\n* `work/src1914/job1914-checks.py` (sha `055ba1d3…`) and `job1914-checks.log`\n  (sha `dcf42e8b…`, **14/14 PASS**, `exit_code 0`, one bounded `exec`, 0.07 s wall / <= 0.001 CPU-h);\n  the two failed intermediate runs are preserved honestly as `job1914-checks.first-run.log` and\n  `job1914-checks.second-run.log` — all three failures were **my own check bugs** (a coefficient\n  `-2` dropped from a rational part, a `1.05e-6` tolerance, primes tested for equality with\n  `10^4/10^5/10^6` instead of `>=`) plus one wrong control normalisation (the one-class product must\n  include `p = 2`); each was found by reading *which* check failed, not the count.\n* Usage stays **PENDING** (this harness exposes no attributable per-turn usage; never estimated).","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"verified","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-18T14:53:59.610Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[49]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":0,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash":0},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":null,"verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":null,"also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"proposed","proposal":{"title":"Return #49 survives: repair the §6.4 ledger description, the sieve-interface paragraph and the normalized rows; both asymptotic lower bounds stand","prior_art_md":"The manuscript already consumes the relevant published inputs, and this proposal adds no new external claim. Kalmynin-Konyagin, arXiv:2302.00459v2 (the polynomial Jacobsthal analogue; cardinality-only corollary and the defective auxiliary-product encoding the manuscript refuses to rely on) is the source the ledger substitutes into; Richert, Lectures on Sieve Methods (Tata 1976), Theorem 11.3 with the Halberstam-Richert Theorem 2.2 cross-reference, is the upper-sieve statement the bridge must be stated against, precisely because Richert's A_d is defined by divisibility (printed 108, eq. (9.7)) while the manuscript's §6.1 paragraph reads it as a residue-class form; the review's CRT-idempotent multiset bridge is the standard reduction back to the divisibility definition, not a new theorem. FGKMT arXiv:1412.5029 printed eqs. (1.2)/(1.3) supply the one-class scale and the covered-length identification that justify the free transfer, and explicitly distinguish Iwaniec's proven upper exponent 2 from the conjectured Maier-Pomerance exponent 1 + o(1) - the exact distinction the manuscript's §10 control-bias sentence must respect. Dusart arXiv:1002.0442 Theorem 6.10 and Rosser-Schoenfeld Theorem 5 are the explicit Mertens bounds §6.3 already quotes for the band difference. OEIS A072753/A144311 are the only comparison rows, and A288815's own formula states the factor-6/omitted-primes bridge. The two-class Mertens product used in the revised Theorem A step is classical (twin-prime constant C2 = prod_{p>2}(1 - 1/(p-1)^2), limit `4 C2 e^{-2 gamma}/ln^2 z`); this turn confirms it to z = 1000003 rather than citing it. A topical web search (plus a control query, both returning results this turn) located no external prior art for the two-class sieve ledger or for a residue-class reduction of a divisibility-defined sieve, and the department's own `research/history/staging/lit-pdf-kalmynin-konyagin.md` already records that a quote currently attributed in `research/two-class-lower-bounds.md:118` is NOT FOUND in the primary PDF - a citation defect of the same class as the one this proposal repairs. Novelty is not claimed for any step; the contribution is the verification and the repair, not a new lower bound.","uncertainty_md":"The refutation in (1) is exact arithmetic and does not depend on any unread source, but it fixes only the DESCRIPTION of the two ledger constants and the `exp(O(1))` wording; whether the corrected §6.4 assembly is what the reviewer would accept as a full repair of §3 is a judgement only a new review can make, and the same review would still have to accept (2)-(4). (2) is the reviewer's own suggested bridge; its bounded-density constants (kappa-dependence) and whether the manuscript needs the kappa-4 multiset form or only the simpler `{n(n+2)}` multiset for Theorem A are untested here - that is exactly the proposed next experiment. The product-asymptotic check is numerical to z = 1000003 with relative error 7.9e-5 and monotone decrease; it supports but does not prove the identity (a proof is the displayed two-class Mertens derivation, and the reviewer already states the constant is correct). The finite table in (3) is quoted from review #73 (itself citing review15 of return32) and was deliberately NOT recomputed, per the brief's instruction to reserve reproduction; if the integrator needs it recomputed, the m = 200000 construction costs one bounded run but is not decisive for either asymptotic theorem. Finally, the §2 OEIS row is repaired from the class-pair definition only (G2(30) = 12); the internal convention of A072753's own index was not re-derived, and no OEIS entry was read this turn beyond what the return and review already cite - so (3) should be checked against the OEIS entry before publication.","contribution_md":"A statement-level repair path for return #49's `kk-lower-bound` revision, with the one wrong sentence now decided by exact arithmetic rather than by a referee's assertion. (1) LEDGER: restore the split in §6.4 - `C_excl = -2 ln 2 + 2M - 2(1/2+1/3) = -2.529966602` is the `5 <= p <= sqrt(y)` sum (g(2)=g(3)=0) and the bridge to the full ledger is `g(2)/2 + g(3)/3 = 1/2 + 2/3 = 7/6`, giving `C_actual = -2 ln 2 + 2M - 1/2 = -1.363299935`; the added sentence's phrase \"with g(2)=2 and g(3)=2 counted\" must go (that quantity is -0.863300), while the displayed addition `-2.529967 + 1/2 + 2/3 = -1.3633` stays. Also as the review requires, keep `exp(O(1))`/asymptotic comparability in the displayed `exp(-sum g(p)/p)` equality. (2) SIEVE INTERFACE: add the review's own bridge - CRT idempotents e_p (e_p = 1 mod p, 0 mod q != p), `F_p(n) = 1 - e_p + e_p prod_{r in Omega_p}(n-r)`, `F(n) = prod_{p<=z} F_p(n)` on the multiset `A = {F(n) : 1 <= n <= floor(X)}` - so q | F(n) exactly when n lies in Omega_q, and the divisibility count becomes the CRT residue count with `|A_d| - g(d)X/d <= g(d)`; then state consistently whether §§6.1/9/11.2 consume Richert Theorem 11.3 directly or through the repaired representative map. (3) ROWS: normalize the §2 comparison with the review's explicit bridge (`A288815(n) = 6 A072753(n) + 6`, omitted primes 2 and 3, covered length), since the class-pair computation here gives `G2(30) = 12` against `A072753(3) = 2`; relabel the printed `2.0123` as the old-cutoff greedy (sqrt(m), skip-already-covered) variant and quote the revised-choice row `0.2929927` (sqrt(m)/log(m), inject every survivor) instead. (4) CALIBRATION: drop \"provably biased\"/\"whose answer is 1\" for the fitted control exponent (Iwaniec's proven 2 vs the conjectured Maier-Pomerance 1), scope the disclosure to finite-vs-asymptotic, and call `10^134.1` a geometric onset estimate for the displayed A = 4.05 choice rather than a universal threshold. Nothing here changes Theorem A's constant, Theorem B's substitution, the covering identity or the three-stage certificate - the review preserves all four."},"next_step":{"method":"Implement the bridge literally at a scale far below any reproduction: take X = 10^5, z = sqrt(X) (and a second z = sqrt(X)/log X), build the CRT idempotents e_p for p <= z, form the multiset A = {F(n) : 1 <= n <= floor(X)} with F(n) = prod_{p<=z} (1 - e_p + e_p prod_{r in Omega_p}(n - r)) for Omega_p = {0, -2} mod p, and check (a) that count(A_d) = #{n : n mod p in Omega_p for all p | d} = g(d) * floor(X/d) + O(g(d)) exactly for every squarefree d | P(z), (b) |count(A_d) - g(d)X/d| <= g(d) for all such d, and (c) that the same check FAILS for the source's unrepaired representative encoding, so the choice between the two repairs is decided by measurement. Cross-check the kappa = 4 claim by reading off g(p) = |Omega_p| = 2 for 5 <= p <= z with the band-1 exceptions g(2) = 1, g(3) = 2. Report the largest |A_d| - g(d)X/d|/g(d) over d and the number of d tested.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":0.05,"cpu_hours":0.05},"failure":"If any squarefree d violates |A_d| - g(d)X/d| <= g(d), or if the multiset A collapses values in a way that breaks the CRT count, the bridge is not a drop-in and §6.1 must instead ship the repaired representative map with its sign and multiplicity details - still a statement-level repair, but a different one; that outcome is recorded with the failing d and delta rather than a new claim.","success":"For every squarefree d | P(z), |count(A_d) - g(d)X/d| <= g(d) holds (with the multiset convention), so §6.1 can consume Richert's divisibility-form Theorem 11.3 with the manuscript's own constants, g(2)=1, g(3)=2 and kappa=4 confirmed, and §11.2's representative-map repair becomes unnecessary; the manuscript then needs only the ledger-description fix and the normalization/labelling fixes.","question":"Does the reviewer's CRT-idempotent multiset bridge actually deliver a divisibility-defined sieve statement with |A_d| - g(d)X/d <= g(d), i.e. is §6.1's residue-class paragraph repairable as stated rather than by repairing the source's representative map?","budget_hours":0.4,"required_tools":["python3","exact-integer-arithmetic","crt-idempotent-construction"],"required_sources":["served-kk-lower-bound-baseline","review-73","richert-lectures-theorem-11-3"]},"evidence_md":"Return #49 (job #77, paper `kk-lower-bound`, author model claude-fable-5-1) is `rejected` by one trusted decision (review #73, gpt-6-astra, 20453 chars, 2026-09-13) whose own text preserves the mathematics: \"Reject pending corrections to the sieve interface, ledger, finite-example identification, normalizations and calibration. Preserve the two main asymptotic lower bounds. I find no counterexample to Theorem A or to the fixed-distance-two construction behind Theorem B. Their mathematical cores survive with the repairs below\", and §9 \"concrete repairs to a derivation that largely survives; they do not call for another large numerical run\". So the rejection closes statements and one interface paragraph, not the attempt. The served baseline was re-fetched and hash-verified (GET /projects/twin-primes/docs/paper/kk-lower-bound.md, 74899 chars, sha256 7c375d9510a22b6fc2c6241eeffe51c1d92cb9daa17e4eba63220ed1c29c107f = the baseline the review names; the revision's diff is NOT applied: `patch_status: pending integration`). NEW AND DECISIVE (exact, this turn, 14/14 checks): the revision ADDS a §6.4 sentence claiming `-2.529967` (§6.3) \"is the limit of the full sum with g(2)=2 and g(3)=2 counted\". That is refuted exactly: `C_excl = -2 ln 2 + 2M - 2(1/2+1/3) = -2.529966602` is the `5 <= p <= sqrt(y)` sum minus `2 ln ln y`, i.e. g(2)=g(3)=0; the described quantity is `C_excl + 2(1/2+1/3) = -0.863299935`, an error of 1.666667. The sentence's arithmetic is nevertheless right and preserved: the rational parts differ by exactly `-1/2 - (-5/3) = 7/6 = 1/2 + 2/3` (exact Fraction identity) and `C_actual = -2 ln 2 + 2M - 1/2 = -1.363299935`, matching the manuscript's own §6.4 line `B >= 4 e^{1.3633} A^4`. Hence the review's instruction \"keep the displayed numerical addition and correct the description\" is a one-sentence repair. SECOND: the Theorem A constant in the revision's added proof step is confirmed numerically by a plain sieve to z = 1000003 (78504 primes, `exec`-bounded, exit 0): `prod_{3<=p<=z}(1-2/p) ln^2 z` = 0.830350 / 0.831911 / 0.832363 at z = 10007 / 100003 / 1000003 against the limit `4 C2 e^{-2 gamma} = 0.832429` (ratios 0.997503 / 0.999378 / 0.999921), one-class control `prod_{p<=z}(1-1/p) ln z` = 0.560755 / 0.561285 / 0.561437 against `e^{-gamma} = 0.561459`, and `2 C2 e^{-2 gamma} = 0.416214533` (revision prints 0.41621). Relative error shrinks with z, so this is the asymptotic signature; it is a constant check, not a replay of any producer. THIRD, from the class-pair definition used throughout: the admissible residues mod 30 for `{0,-2}` with p in {2,3,5} are {11,17,29} - three classes, cyclic gaps 6,12,12, so `G2(30) = 12`, exactly the figure the review cites against the unscaled OEIS row `A072753(3) = 2` (and a single p = 5 gives residues {1,2,4}, covered length 1). SEARCH: `web_search` was UP this turn (topical query AND control `twin primes`, 10 organic each); the topical query returned the department's own `research/covering-dive.md` and the staged `research/history/staging/lit-pdf-kalmynin-konyagin.md` (which already records a NOT-FOUND quote at `research/two-class-lower-bounds.md:118`), plus Kalmynin-Konyagin arXiv:2302.00459, Richert's Tata Lectures and Halberstam-Richert/Iwaniec lower-bound-sieve expositions. No external prior art was located for the proposed CRT-idempotent multiset bridge as a residue-class reduction of a divisibility-defined sieve (search-bounded, not an absence claim). Nothing was reproduced: rankin2d and the other producers were not run; the finite table is cited from the review, not recomputed."},"research_route_id":78,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_c326cb5ae203e5d0d94f8db1","run_id":"run_9d3be5b8c0e51a022464b2ed","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Read return #49 and its search record, then search online for the method and changed alternatives before testing them. Check whether its negative conclusion closes only a statement or attempt. Use published numerical results with citations, reserving reproduction for later validation. Inspect the decisive evidence, then seek a concrete alternative. Preserve valid refutations. A promising alternative should return research.proposal with parent evidence in cites.returns, a prior-art comparison and the cheapest next experiment. If nothing changes, record the scoped obstacle and stop. This is a bounded sample; do not reproduce the whole investigation.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/78","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1015/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"055ba1d3541b147e5031b9fc3af3887205ed5aab68b3ffe1d4b531ed7db15206","name":"job1914-checks.py","bytes":7527},{"sha256":"dcf42e8b6d8b660756545985af8cebd2e94ca32fe4d46d3a667eb1dc4273f0ba","name":"job1914-checks.log","bytes":2240},{"sha256":"9182894da72b4e039e2cea04f8851437478bf8b3c2dd8d10740e39b7d70672e5","name":"REPORT.md","bytes":9748},{"sha256":"a928a32d64e15cbb3e80741e0241063ca128d1b8abac52c22de02fb7a49c3e6d","name":"research-1914.json","bytes":12153}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}