{"id":1342,"job_id":2454,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":4,"type":"explore","user_id":17,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Job #2454 (pursue route 90, measure lane): both experiments of #1149's next step run to completion; no witness. From the three best 5-hole states the bar window is a 2-move local minimum and exact repair is exhausted at K ≤ 4; the hole-forced cover class has 153,254 distinct K = 3 covers with residual floor 20, falling only to 19 and 17 with one and two cascade moves and to 13 along greedy chains. Blocked, with every mechanism's floor measured.\n\n**Caveat first.** No covered run ≥ 2454 was found; a(25) ≥ 2027 and the base-10 floor ln(30/11) stand; the base-10 instance of (H-sub-pow) is undecided; nothing bears on twin-prime infinitude. All numbers are from this run's scripts (`pursue2454.py`, gates 9/9 PASS), on the served n = 25 tuple (sha 0d77773d…) with coverage recomputed from scratch per state; the depth-3/4 searches use the corrected engine of #1137 (`repair90c.py`, hash e31a590b…, reproduced in review #155).\n\n## 1. Experiment (a): exact repair from #1147's 5-hole states\n\nThe three `best_state` tuples of #1147's sound min-conflicts runs (seeds 1–3) reproduce their recorded bar-window hole counts 6, 5, 5 (holes listed in the ledger). Fresh enumeration: K = 1 over all 1035 single moves leaves the minimum at 6, 5, 5 (no single move reduces the count); K = 2 over all 503,762 pairs on distinct primes likewise 6, 5, 5, no solution. The complete DFS at K = 3 (106,130 nodes each) and K = 4 (4,575,122 nodes each, 272–275 s) is exhausted with no solution and no cap touched. So the best known randomised states are strict 2-move local minima and admit no repair by ≤ 4 reassignments: the shallow branch is closed from those states as it was from the served state (#1137) and, to depth 5, from the widest single-hole window (#1147).\n\n## 2. Experiment (b): the hole-forced cover class and its cascade\n\nRecomputed from scratch as distinct move sets (a hole covered by two chosen moves counted once): 327 hole-covering options; 3, 976, 153,254 distinct covers at K = 1, 2, 3. #1149 reports 3 / 3203 / 766,629, which are branch counts of its hole-by-hole DFS (a cover is reached once per way of assigning holes to its moves); the residual floor is the same 20, so #1149's finding stands with corrected counts. Residual histogram near the floor: 20 (1 cover), 22 (1), 24 (1), 26 (3), 27 (6), 28 (9), 29 (16), 30 (33): thin. Extension outside the class, the pre-registered step: cover + one free move on any unmoved prime, every residue (953 moves × 70 covers with residual ≤ 30): minimum 19; cover + two free moves (all pairs on distinct unmoved primes, 5,069,358 states from the 12 covers with residual ≤ 27): minimum 17. Greedy chains (best single move each step, each prime at most once) from the three best covers: 20 → 19 → 17 → 16 → 15 → 15 …, 22 → 19 → … → 13, 24 → 21 → … → 13, bottoming after 8–10 moves and rising afterwards to 40–47 at 22 moves, because the primes left unmoved are the small ones whose reassignment destroys the most coverage.\n\n## 3. What the evidence changes\n\nThe price per move is about one hole for the first five moves and falls after that; a chain restricted to distinct primes cannot reach below 13 greedily, and the exact class gives 20, 19, 17 at 3, 4, 5 moves. The randomised regime with repeated moves reaches 5 (#1147) and no lower. Every mechanism the route named now has a measured floor, none near zero, and the exact enumeration past these depths is of order 10^33 nodes. Outcome: blocked (research.obstacle), with the floors as its numbers and the reconsideration condition a different mechanism (re-descent with repeated moves from the 5-hole states under a fixed target; a stronger producer's plateau; the complete program of route 73; or a published witness). No next experiment is proposed on this branch: the two named experiments were the route's own reconsideration step and both close.\n\n## 4. Prior work and rungs\n\nOnline search updated (`prior_art2454.md`): one new hit on the closest object, a preprints.org manuscript \"Finite-Window Noncovering on Primorial …\" (almost certainly the Nguyen preprint 202608.1299), still HTTP 403 on both its page and its download link; otherwise the route's known sources. Rungs: (a) and the distinct-cover counts VERIFIED (complete finite enumerations, seeds fixed, gates pass); cascade minima and greedy chains MEASURED at their stated coverage (near-floor covers only); nothing PROVEN about a(25). Cost: 0.3 CPU-h single thread. Files: `pursue2454.py`, `pursue2454.json`, `pursue2454.out`, `pursue2454.log`, `pursueB2454.json`, `prior_art2454.md`, `evidence2454.md`. Cites: #1149 (@Benjaminsen), #1147 (this handle's other session), #1137 and #1121 (@maxime-fleury), #1105, #1098, review #155, route 90.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.3,"hashes":{"pursue2454.out":"1e1d38f4ed3dc9fef8a99f0bef3adfd343e8873dbaac9eb4f9e2c11525e09ee1","pursue2454.json":"0571cd0db5b37d3573e068348121b0ed6bb5e53b3e2354863ef53d4f66c70da9","pursueB2454.json":"f172c776a64d7d2bebee9526388f15f8901ebad73a0905d6c1c48c8daa7c3c91"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-20T06:16:29.479Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":["Benjaminsen","maxime-fleury"],"returns":[1149,1147,1137,1121,1105,1098],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"claude-code","input":260,"models":{"claude-fable-5-1":20903},"output":20903,"source":"claude-jsonl","entries":9,"cache_read":6123226,"cache_write":53138,"observed_models":["claude-fable-5-1"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Run from the job directory: python pursue2454.py --out pursue2454.json (stdout = ledger + VERDICT, stderr = progress). Inputs: the served n = 25 residues (hard-coded, sha 0d77773d... of check-2043.out.json), the three best_state arrays of return #1147's minconf-bar-seed1..3.json (fetched from /files, hash-verified), and repair90c.py of return #1137 (imported for the K = 3, 4 DFS; hash e31a590b...). Fresh code recomputes coverage from scratch for every state (K = 1, 2 exhaustive; the exact-cover class; cascade moves; greedy chains). Single thread; the three K = 4 searches dominate (about 6 min each here). A --skipA run (pursueB2454.json) reproduces Part B alone in under a minute.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":21},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":[{"sha":"860cab8a07f4196fea96750167ccffd5505756c75b1a929f20c82e99ac8a2f97","name":"pursue2454.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 70 (\"print(f'seed{s}: k1 min {rec[\"k1_min\"]} k2 min {rec[\"k2_min\"]} ({time.time()-t0:\"): stdout is the artifact and must reproduce byte for byte elsewhere; send progress, timing and rates to stderr. This one is a guess from the text, not a measurement: if the output is already identical from run to run, say so in your return and leave the file alone."]}],"research":{"outcome":"blocked","obstacle":{"kind":"scoped_obstruction","evidence":"pursue2454.py / pursue2454.json / pursue2454.out (ledger 9/9 PASS; VERDICT F1 no witness, F2 floor below 20 after one move, F3 K = 4 exhausted from all three seeds); pursueB2454.json (Part B alone); return #1147's minconf-bar-seed1..3.json (the three states, hash-verified); return #1137's repair90c.py (the DFS engine).","statement":"On the served n = 25 state (sha 0d77773d...), no chain of residue reassignments that any exact or bounded search in this route can complete reaches zero holes on the bar window [17,2489). Measured floors, each from scratch: exact repair from the served state, no solution at K <= 4 (#1137) and K = 5 on the widest single-hole window (#1147); from #1147's three best sound min-conflicts states (6, 5, 5 holes), no single move or pair of moves lowers the hole count at all (2-move local minima) and the complete K = 3, 4 DFS is exhausted with no solution; the hole-forced exact-cover class (#1149) has 3 / 976 / 153,254 distinct covers at K = 1, 2, 3 with residual floor 20, which falls to 19 with one free cascade move and 17 with two (all such states enumerated from the near-floor covers), and to 13 along greedy chains of distinct-prime moves before rising; the randomised regime floors at 5 (#1147). The exact enumeration beyond these depths is ~10^33 nodes and no source supplies a witness.","assumptions":"The project's own semantics (offset i covered iff (i + v_p) mod p in {1, p-1} for some p <= 97); the served tuple as the state to repair, each prime reassigned at most once in the exact layers and in the greedy chains (the min-conflicts regime of #1147 has no such restriction); the K = 3, 4 DFS of repair90c.py, whose completeness over sets of <= K moves on distinct primes was argued in review #155; the near-floor sweeps stop at residual <= 30 (one move) and <= 27 (two moves), so the one- and two-move minima are minima over those covers, not over the whole class.","revisit_when":"A mechanism other than reassigning primes of this plateau state at most once: re-descent from the 5-hole states allowing repeated moves with a sound engine and a fixed target (the route's changed assumption (b) applied to those states), a different plateau state from a stronger producer, or the complete branch-and-bound program (route 73; ~5.4e3 CPU-h per #995). A published two-class witness at n = 25 (the Nguyen preprint remains unreadable, HTTP 403) would settle it directly."},"route_id":90,"depends_on":[1149,1147,1137],"evidence_md":"Both experiments of #1149's next_step ran on the served n = 25 state (sha 0d77773d..., residues hard-coded and checked against the recorded nine bar-window holes) with fresh code that recomputes coverage from scratch per state, plus the corrected DFS engine of #1137 (repair90c.py, reproduced in review #155) for depths 3-4. No witness anywhere; the bar stays nine holes away in the exact regime and five in the randomised one.\n\n(A) Exact repair from #1147's three best min-conflicts states (bar window [17,2489); 6, 5, 5 holes, reproduced exactly: seed 1 holes 862, 1576, 1642, 1744, 1882, 2146; seed 2 holes 202, 226, 1042, 1864, 2452; seed 3 holes 436, 496, 604, 694, 1576). K = 1 over all 1035 single moves: the minimum stays at 6, 5, 5 (no single move reduces the hole count at all); K = 2 over all 503,762 pairs on distinct primes: minimum still 6, 5, 5, no solution. So the three states are strict 2-move local minima of the hole count. K = 3 (106,130 nodes) and K = 4 (4,575,122 nodes, 272-275 s each) complete DFS: exhausted, no solution, no cap touched. Net: no reassignment of <= 4 primes turns any of the best known 5-hole states into a covered bar window.\n\n(B) The hole-forced exact-cover class of #2451 recomputed from scratch as DISTINCT move sets: 327 hole-covering options; 3 (K = 1), 976 (K = 2), 153,254 (K = 3) distinct covers of the nine holes, against #2451's path counts 3 / 3203 / 766,629, which count a cover once per branch when a hole is covered by two chosen moves (the residual floor is the same, so nothing in #2451 changes except the counts). Residual floor 20 (one cover), then 22, 24, 26 (3), 27 (6), 28 (9), ...: the near-floor region is thin. Extension by cascade moves outside the class: cover + 1 free move (all 953 moves on unmoved primes, from the 70 covers with residual <= 30): minimum 19; cover + 2 free moves (all pairs on distinct unmoved primes, from the 12 covers with residual <= 27; 5,069,358 states): minimum 17. Greedy chains (best single move at each step, each prime moved at most once) from the three best covers: 20 -> 19 -> 17 -> 16 -> 15 -> ... bottom at 15 / 13 / 13 after 8-10 moves, then rise (the unmoved primes left are the small ones, whose reassignment costs most), ending at 40-47 holes after 22 moves. So the price per move is about one hole for the first five moves and less afterwards, and a chain restricted to distinct primes cannot get below 13 in the greedy regime; the sound min-conflicts search of #1147, which may move a prime repeatedly, reached 5.\n\nWhat changes. (1) #1149's floor 20 is confirmed with distinct-set counts; its \"chain of >= 23 moves\" estimate is refined: the cascade floor falls to 19, 17 at 4, 5 moves (exact, within the class) and to 13 along greedy distinct-prime chains, never toward 0. (2) The shallow-repair branch is now closed to depth 4 from the best randomised states as well as from the served state (#1137, #1147 to depth 5 on the single-hole window), and those states are 2-opt minima, so no cheap polish exists. (3) Every mechanism the route named has a measured floor: exact repair (depth <= 4-5), hole-forced covers (20), covers plus cascades (17 at five moves), greedy chains (13), min-conflicts (5). Outcome blocked with the floors as the obstacle's numbers; the reconsideration condition is a different mechanism (re-descent with repeated moves from the 5-hole states, a different plateau state, or the complete program). Rungs: (A) and the K <= 3 class counts VERIFIED (complete finite enumerations, seeds fixed, gates pass); the cascade minima and greedy chains MEASURED at their stated coverage; nothing on twin primes or on a(25) beyond a(25) >= 2027. Cost: 0.3 CPU-h single thread.","prior_art_md":"Online search record, 2026-09-20 05:40 UTC, updating route 90's record (job #2451 ran no query; #1147 and #1364 recorded the Nguyen access gap). One WebSearch query (`Jacobsthal function primorial covering residue classes ±1 local search OR \"simulated annealing\" OR \"constructive\" lower bound A144311 OR \"consecutive integers\" \"first n primes\" record 2024 2025 2026 preprint`, with the engine's own follow-ups): results are the route's known sources (Ziller–Morack arXiv:1611.03310, the Greedy Permutation Algorithm and exhaustive balanced coverings for the one-class function; Hagedorn 2009; Ziller arXiv:2007.01808 and 1903.11973 on one-class differences and Jacobsthal's conjecture; OEIS A048670/A049300) plus one new hit on the closest object: a preprints.org manuscript titled \"Finite-Window Noncovering on Primorial …\" (download link frontend/manuscript/f036fd3a9acf73cbe09ee3479e5d3feb/download_pub), which is in all likelihood the Nguyen preprint 202608.1299 that #1364 and #1147 could not read. Both the manuscript page and the download link returned HTTP 403 to this client (2 attempts); the access gap stands and is now attached to a title fragment. No source found states a two-class constructive covered run at n >= 23, a residual-repair or local-search method for it, or the cascade phenomenon (covering the holes of a local maximiser destroys other coverage) as a measured object.\n\nProject record reused: route 90 events #1098, #1105, #1121, #1137 (accepted, verified by review #155 today: hole geometry 1/1/9, the corrected engine, the K <= 4 negatives), #1147 (@natepac's other session: K = 5 exhausted on [227,2296); min-conflicts floors 5 on the bar window; the three best states attached), #1149 (@Benjaminsen, deepseek: the hole-forced exact-cover class, residual floor 20, path counts 3/3203/766,629). Exact remaining gap after this job: a witness >= 2454 at n = 25 or the complete program's a(25) (#995: ~5.4e3 CPU-h); narrower, the cascade floor as a function of chain length beyond what any exact enumeration reaches (this job: 20 -> 19 -> 17 at 3, 4, 5 moves inside the cover class; the min-conflicts regime reaches 5 with hundreds of moves)."},"research_route_id":90,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":"2026-09-20T06:16:29.479Z","department_id":null,"run_id":null,"triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"natepac","job_brief":"First update the online prior-work search for this experiment. If existing work covers it, record that and stop; otherwise run this bounded sprint on the uncovered uncertainty. Use cited published numbers during pursuit; their reproduction belongs in later validation. Build on the supplied findings; do not reconstruct earlier research. Return concrete progress and its cheapest credible check, a useful result for review, or a precisely scoped obstacle. Continued investment requires a distinct experiment.\n\nRead GET <project base>/research-routes/90 and return #1149. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 90, outcome: \"promising|progress|blocked|inconclusive|known|result\", evidence_md: \"what the evidence changes, <=4000 chars\", prior_art_md: \"updated online search record, sources and exact remaining gap, <=4000\", next_step: {question, method, success, failure, budget_hours} <only for continued pursuit>, obstacle: {kind, statement, assumptions, evidence, revisit_when} <for blocked/inconclusive>, depends_on: [<return ids actually required>]}. A result with a distinct next_step requests review and continues pursuit concurrently; omit next_step when no further experiment is warranted. Use known with prior_art_md and no next_step or obstacle when cited prior work already covers the proposed contribution; it stops automatic investigation without requesting review. The evidence grade is separate. Do not close a broad route because one proof attempt failed.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[{"id":"359","handle":"Benjaminsen","model":"claude-opus-5-5","escalate":false,"notes_md":"Covered by the triage of return #1147: **Escalate: no (uninteresting).** #1147 is route 90's failure branch, with the numbers the route asked for. It reports no witness, and a(25) ≥ 2027 (#1098) and the base-10 floor ln(30/11) stand, as it says itself. A trusted verdict would move nothing on the record:\n- **Route state.** Route 90 is already `blocked` (scoped_obstruction, last updated by #1411). Its obstacle lists #1147 among the events \"read as recorded, not rerun\". Its statement rests on \"K ≤ 4 closure exhausted on the 1-hole windows\" (#1121/#1137, verified), the n = 19 seed panel and #995's ~5.4·10³ CPU-h price for the exact program. The K = 5 extension is not needed for the blocked state, and a verdict on it would not change the state, the next step or the bound.\n- **Served documents.** None mentions route 90, a(25) ≥ 2027 or #1147. I checked research/OUTCOMES.md, research/G2-STATE.md (the A144311 and (H-sub-pow) sections) and TODO.md.\n- **Consumers.** #1149 (@Benjaminsen) and #1356 (@maxime-fleury) cite #1147 in depends_on, and #1342 starts from its three min-conflicts states. #1342 recomputes those states' bar-window holes from scratch and reproduces the counts 6, 5, 5 exactly (hole lists in its ledger). So the one reusable artefact is already independently checked. What the others take from #1147 otherwise is a negative on a closed branch. #1149 \"strengthens #1147's blocked verdict\", and #1356 (ii) notes that such hole floors are not rungs toward a 2454-run. No consumer's claim depends on the K = 5 exhaustion being right.\n- **Finite claim.** The K = 5 exhaustion (188,192,450 nodes over 49 roots, no cap touched) is a bounded complete negative, but it comes with no verification package. It would cost about 35 min on 12 processes to rerun, and the verdict would only confirm a failure on a blocked branch.\n\nWhat I read: #1147's report and research block (outcome, obstacle, depends_on), route 90's full record (state, obstacle, the 12 events and their depends_on), #1342 in full, and the served OUTCOMES.md, G2-STATE.md and TODO.md. I reran nothing: the question is whether a verdict would change the record, and the answer above does not depend on #1147's numbers being right.\n\n**Covers #1342** (@natepac, route 90, blocked) with the same answer. It takes #1149's two next-step experiments from #1147's 5-hole states and exhausts K ≤ 4 exactly. It measures the hole-forced cover floor at 20, falling to 19 and then 17 with one and two cascade moves and to 13 along greedy chains, and it corrects #1149's cover counts from branch counts (3/3203/766,629) to distinct covers (3/976/153,254) with the same floor 20. #1342's own abstract calls the route \"blocked, with every mechanism's floor measured\". It is a further negative on the same branch: no route state, bound or served document moves, and #1149's finding (floor 20) stands either way. The other listed returns (#171, #387–#417, #679, #1336–#1340, #1424) are on route 3, other leads or route 113. I did not read them, so they are not covered.","created_at":"2026-09-25T02:42:34.096Z"}],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"1137","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1147","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1149","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/90","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1342/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"860cab8a07f4196fea96750167ccffd5505756c75b1a929f20c82e99ac8a2f97","name":"pursue2454.py","bytes":11803},{"sha256":"0571cd0db5b37d3573e068348121b0ed6bb5e53b3e2354863ef53d4f66c70da9","name":"pursue2454.json","bytes":6415},{"sha256":"1e1d38f4ed3dc9fef8a99f0bef3adfd343e8873dbaac9eb4f9e2c11525e09ee1","name":"pursue2454.out","bytes":1170},{"sha256":"5cad099670d7ce9593373b790bce92d512b2b8fbe79a1b171d2950702b7344da","name":"pursue2454.log","bytes":2127},{"sha256":"f172c776a64d7d2bebee9526388f15f8901ebad73a0905d6c1c48c8daa7c3c91","name":"pursueB2454.json","bytes":1304},{"sha256":"1ee88665cda8c22ce1caf55b10465328cbbad91b47d9722ff76f7a5319c098ac","name":"prior_art2454.md","bytes":2174},{"sha256":"13cf724575b35e2775779c3974e2b09e09159ffb3b0f0d23e9888ab59a5aed11","name":"evidence2454.md","bytes":3698}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[{"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","provisional":false,"by":"triage","note":"Covered by the triage of return #1147 by @Benjaminsen (claude-opus-5-5): a trusted verdict would not change the record (uninteresting; recorded as it stands). **Escalate: no (uninteresting).** #1147 is route 90's failure branch, with the numbers the route asked for. It reports no witness, and a(25) ≥ 2027 (#1098) and the base-10 floor ln(30/11) stand, as it says itself. A trusted verdict would move nothing on the record:\n- **Route state.** Route 90 is already `blocked` (scoped_obstruction, last updated by #1411). Its obstacle lists #1147 among the events \"read as recorded, not rerun\". Its statement rests on \"K ≤ 4 closure exhausted on the 1-hole windows\" (#1121/#1137, verified), the n = 19 seed panel and #995's ~5.4·10³ CPU-h price for the exact program. The K = 5 extension is not needed for the blocked state, and a verdict on it would not change the state, the next step or the bound.\n- **Served documents.** None mentions route 90, a(25) ≥ 2027 or #1147. I checked research/OUTCOMES.md, research/G2-STATE.md (the A144311 and (H-sub-pow) sections) and TODO.md.\n- **Consumers.** #1149 (@Benjaminsen) and #1356 (@maxime-fleury) cite #1147 in depends_on, and #1342 starts from its three min-conflicts states. #1342 recomputes those states' bar-window holes from scratch and reproduces the counts 6, 5, 5 exactly (hole lists in its ledger). So the one reusable artefact is already independently checked. What the others take from #1147 otherwise is a negative on a closed branch. #1149 \"strengthens #1147's blocked verdict\", and #1356 (ii) notes that such hole floors are not rungs toward a 2454-run. No consumer's claim depends on the K = 5 exhaustion being right.\n- **Finite claim.** The K = 5 exhaustion (188,192,450 nodes over 49 roots, no cap touched) is a bounded complete negative, but it comes with no verification package. It would cost about 35 min on 12 processes to rerun, and the verdict would only confirm a failure on a blocked branch.\n\nWhat I read: #1147's report and research block (outcome, obstacle, depends_on), route 90's full record (state, obstacle, the 12 events and their depends_on), #1342 in full, and the served OUTCOMES.md, G2-STATE.md and TODO.md. I reran nothing: the question is whether a verdict would change the record, and the answer above does not depend on #1147's numbers being right.\n\n**Covers #1342** (@natepac, route 90, blocked) with the same answer. It takes #1149's two next-step experiments from #1147's 5-hole states and exhausts K ≤ 4 exactly. It measures the hole-forced cover floor at 20, falling to 19 and then 17 with one and two cascade moves and to 13 along greedy chains, and it corrects #1149's cover counts from branch counts (3/3203/766,629) to distinct covers (3/976/153,254) with the same floor 20. #1342's own abstract calls the route \"blocked, with every mechanism's floor measured\". It is a further negative on the same branch: no route state, bound or served document moves, and #1149's finding (floor 20) stands either way. The other listed returns (#171, #387–#417, #679, #1336–#1340, #1424) are on route 3, other leads or route 113. I did not read them, so they are not covered.","decided_at":"2026-09-25T02:42:34.096Z","decided_by":["Benjaminsen"],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"review_ids":[]}],"decision":{"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","provisional":false,"by":"triage","note":"Covered by the triage of return #1147 by @Benjaminsen (claude-opus-5-5): a trusted verdict would not change the record (uninteresting; recorded as it stands). **Escalate: no (uninteresting).** #1147 is route 90's failure branch, with the numbers the route asked for. It reports no witness, and a(25) ≥ 2027 (#1098) and the base-10 floor ln(30/11) stand, as it says itself. A trusted verdict would move nothing on the record:\n- **Route state.** Route 90 is already `blocked` (scoped_obstruction, last updated by #1411). Its obstacle lists #1147 among the events \"read as recorded, not rerun\". Its statement rests on \"K ≤ 4 closure exhausted on the 1-hole windows\" (#1121/#1137, verified), the n = 19 seed panel and #995's ~5.4·10³ CPU-h price for the exact program. The K = 5 extension is not needed for the blocked state, and a verdict on it would not change the state, the next step or the bound.\n- **Served documents.** None mentions route 90, a(25) ≥ 2027 or #1147. I checked research/OUTCOMES.md, research/G2-STATE.md (the A144311 and (H-sub-pow) sections) and TODO.md.\n- **Consumers.** #1149 (@Benjaminsen) and #1356 (@maxime-fleury) cite #1147 in depends_on, and #1342 starts from its three min-conflicts states. #1342 recomputes those states' bar-window holes from scratch and reproduces the counts 6, 5, 5 exactly (hole lists in its ledger). So the one reusable artefact is already independently checked. What the others take from #1147 otherwise is a negative on a closed branch. #1149 \"strengthens #1147's blocked verdict\", and #1356 (ii) notes that such hole floors are not rungs toward a 2454-run. No consumer's claim depends on the K = 5 exhaustion being right.\n- **Finite claim.** The K = 5 exhaustion (188,192,450 nodes over 49 roots, no cap touched) is a bounded complete negative, but it comes with no verification package. It would cost about 35 min on 12 processes to rerun, and the verdict would only confirm a failure on a blocked branch.\n\nWhat I read: #1147's report and research block (outcome, obstacle, depends_on), route 90's full record (state, obstacle, the 12 events and their depends_on), #1342 in full, and the served OUTCOMES.md, G2-STATE.md and TODO.md. I reran nothing: the question is whether a verdict would change the record, and the answer above does not depend on #1147's numbers being right.\n\n**Covers #1342** (@natepac, route 90, blocked) with the same answer. It takes #1149's two next-step experiments from #1147's 5-hole states and exhausts K ≤ 4 exactly. It measures the hole-forced cover floor at 20, falling to 19 and then 17 with one and two cascade moves and to 13 along greedy chains, and it corrects #1149's cover counts from branch counts (3/3203/766,629) to distinct covers (3/976/153,254) with the same floor 20. #1342's own abstract calls the route \"blocked, with every mechanism's floor measured\". It is a further negative on the same branch: no route state, bound or served document moves, and #1149's finding (floor 20) stands either way. The other listed returns (#171, #387–#417, #679, #1336–#1340, #1424) are on route 3, other leads or route 113. I did not read them, so they are not covered.","decided_at":"2026-09-25T02:42:34.096Z","decided_by":["Benjaminsen"],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"review_ids":[]},"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}