{"id":1356,"job_id":2731,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":4,"type":"explore","user_id":34,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #2731 — rescue of route 90's constructive branch: instrument, gate, and a measured negative\n\n**Result: no witness. The bar (a covered run of 2454 at n = 25) was not reached, and the\nserved tuple's 2027 was not improved.** What the run does contribute is a from-scratch\ninstrument that reproduces the route's published geometry exactly, a new robustness fact\nabout the 2027 lower bound, a **measured misalignment in the route's own proxy**, and a\nmeasurement (not an extrapolation) of how much this class of maximiser recovers of the\npublished ladder. Rung: `measured` throughout; no claim here is above its evidence.\n\n## 1. Gate — passed before anything was measured (7/7)\n\nInput: the route's declared state `check-2043.out.json`, re-hashed\n`0d77773d01631d9eb70b76b18588c13b1d76b2bca5a0e4ff22b52c5887630600` — match.\nSemantics are the project's own: offset `i` is covered by prime `p` with residue `v` iff\n`(i + v) mod p ∈ {1, p−1}`. A from-scratch engine (one slice per residue class, no\nincremental or mask arithmetic anywhere) then reproduces, unprompted:\n\n* `[17,2489)` → the nine holes `196, 226, 2254, 2296, 2302, 2326, 2374, 2386, 2452` (route 90's obstacle),\n* `[227,2296)` → the single hole `2254` (returns #1137 / #1149),\n* `[227,2028)` → fully covered (same record),\n* the best run in the state → **2027**, window start **227** (check-2043's summary).\n\nThree independent records, two of them from other runs' returns, recovered by an\nimplementation that shares no code with them.\n\n## 2. Third, standalone checker\n\n`cover90verify.py` re-implements the semantics in plain integer arithmetic, imports nothing\nfrom the search and uses no numpy. It proves a covered run position by position and also\nchecks its two bounding offsets (so \"maximal\" is verified, not assumed).\n\n* served tuple: run `[227, 2254)` of length **2027** — witness true, bounding offsets 226 and 2254 are holes → maximal. **Pass.**\n* served tuple: the 9-hole list on `[17,2489)` and the 1-hole list on `[227,2296)` — **Pass** (3/3).\n* this run's proxy optimum: its 6-hole window and its 1625-run — **Pass** (2/2).\n\n## 3. Measurements (each run inside a Windows job object: wall, memory, job CPU, tree)\n\n| # | measurement | instrument | budget | result |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| M1 | placement-decoupled scan of the **served** tuple | `cover90scan.py` | 2.2 s | longest run over **40,000,000** offsets is exactly **2027** at 227 (765,912 holes); no run > 2027 |\n| M2 | what a random tuple reaches | `restarts-dist.py` | 1,004 descents, 150 s | min 647, p50 929, p90 1091, p99 1229, **max 1319**, mean 939 |\n| M3 | direct run-length maximiser (ILS) at n = 25 | `cover90max.py` | 540 s, 7,799 sweeps, 1,973 restarts, 5,826 kicks | **no run > 2027**; the served tuple is coordinate-wise (1-opt) maximal for the run length |\n| M4 | route's proxy objective (holes in the best 2454-window) | `cover90search.py` | 540 s, 4,449 iterations, 1,368 restarts | floor **6 holes** (9 → 6), window start 17; **its longest covered run is 1625** |\n| M5 | instrument strength vs the published ladder | `calib-ladder.py` | 60 s per level | n=13: 449/545 = **82.4 %**; n=16: 629/869 = **72.4 %**; n=19: 809/1283 = **63.1 %**; n=22: 1127/1709 = **65.9 %** |\n| M6 | same level, 4× the time | `cover90max.py --level 22` | 240 s, 6,185 sweeps, 1,523 restarts | 1157/1709 = **67.7 %** (+1.8 points for 4× time) |\n\n## 4. What the evidence changes\n\n**F1 — the route's proxy is not aligned with its object (new, and it is the load-bearing finding).**\nThe route measures progress as *holes inside a fixed window of the target length*. M4 drives\nthat number from 9 to 6 — a 33 % improvement by the route's own metric — and the\nconfiguration that achieves it has a longest covered run of **1625**, i.e. **20 % below**\nthe 2027 that was already on the record. Proxy progress and the object are not merely\nimperfectly correlated here; they can move in opposite directions. The recorded floors\n(20 → 19 → 17 → 13 → 5 holes from #1149 / #1147) are therefore quantities about *a window's\nhole count* and are not, as the obstacle text reads, rungs on the way to a 2454-run: a\nsix-hole window is 6 holes away, but 829 run-length units away. Any ranking of mechanisms\nby their hole floors should be re-read with that correction.\n\n**F2 — the 2027 is a property of the tuple, not of a truncated scan.** The route's lower\nbound came from a small offset range. M1 shows the same tuple has **no longer run anywhere\nin 40 million offsets**. This is a robustness fact for a(25) ≥ 2027; it also removes the\n\"maybe the scan just stopped early\" worry, cheaply and permanently.\n\n**F3 — the maximiser saturates at about two thirds, and more time does not fix it.** M5/M6 are\nthe route's own pre-registered requirement (\"the instrument's strength is MEASURED against\nthe published ladder before any new level is read\"). At a fixed 60 s the recovery falls\n82 % → 66 % from n = 13 to n = 22; at n = 22, quadrupling the budget moves it 65.9 % → 67.7 %.\nSo this is where uncertainty #3 of the route is answered with a measurement: it assumed the\nquestion was whether the *object's* recovery fraction falls with n, but for a maximiser of\nthis class the recovery saturates near 2/3 and extra budget buys very little. The 2027 is\n*not* the product of this class of instrument — M2 shows random descent reaches 1319 — so\n\"2027 is 84 % of the forecast\" was never a statement about a search of this strength.\n\n**F4 — the bar is not absurd, but nothing here reaches it.** The bar 2454 lies inside the\nladder forecast band for n = 25 ([2335, 2475], point forecast 2404), so the route's premise\nis not refuted. It is simply not attained: not by the proxy (M4), not by the direct\nmaximiser (M3), and not by scanning the existing tuple (M1).\n\n## 5. What this does NOT claim\n\nNo witness; `a(25) ≥ 2027` is unchanged and no better lower bound is offered. Nothing about\ntwin primes, the ladder's published terms, the identity G2 = A144311 + 1, or either bar\nchanges. The Nguyen preprint (preprints.org 202608.1299) was not re-fetched and remains\nunread; the access gap stands. The exactness of the published terms is taken as given, as\nthe route records.\n\n## 6. Defect found in my own instrument, disclosed\n\n`set_level()` truncated the shared prime list destructively, so a later, larger level\nsilently kept the smaller prime set: the first `calib-ladder` run printed `level 13` for\nevery row while comparing against n = 16/19/22 values. It was caught by the level that\nrun's own output printed — not by inspection — and fixed by restoring from a full list\nfirst, with an assertion in the calibration driver. The corrected run is the one reported\n(M5/M6). Unverifiable-after-the-fact runs are named here rather than dropped.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.35,"hashes":{"gate.json":"b47890b829ae3813f3f54b6b42dec36fd387455ae4261c2f674402ceff18dac8","maxA-540s.json":"9d57b5a88a13efc8bb328625bbc5400723941d3be8e91d057f5a5b55f8b0d1de","holesB-540s.json":"d2ef9c6158e1b0206e5a288b6bfc5a4e4a498e625e13646fe6059ebf56074159","level22-240s.json":"c6d44ff462a3e510deafbc4f1287daecc8c731ccacebd6b6b54ab61c188d0818","calib-ladder2.json":"e2e2bd13179946375228b72bcd2abad85fd7442c32e3ef0db69d62c6b1a732a7","claims-probeB.json":"d4a035821bed2af8dd534223d5d85004360a6b65cf5cf019cd2a36b74d6d84ea","claims-served.json":"1c672ef74b98e90d2d2142cdb51abc5ce90852a6403492c688f2e93101f78aa4","restarts-dist.json":"967aede6478e934748bffed66ca3b9d4f7a20be8d943263a1b290119addceac4","verify-probeB.json":"2f78112bd2502992d52a706d024929450781a53619b80b9d5a60bf6271b655a6","verify-served.json":"a48c39d1a407951015f339f74c20dcaa9704ed5d1223a97cac52d651044289e7","probeB-residues.json":"90daf42e094118b6c65cddfef81fb893283f38655c12fb6f91c6fcb2d9d104a6","served-residues.json":"a535b6e6af4f4ed882771e4ed6a31f545dac251ad148dca3455ef077eb0ad986","scan-served-L40000000.json":"aacfe316f95c2288393dcacd6e11953df6754bb79b02c71f1349ae3b9d8fedcd","003af3d1e55d4d7e6ee3e1247b86d448ace576889f5e01abf622f1d7ab4aec8d":"calib-ladder.py","1c672ef74b98e90d2d2142cdb51abc5ce90852a6403492c688f2e93101f78aa4":"claims-served.json","2f78112bd2502992d52a706d024929450781a53619b80b9d5a60bf6271b655a6":"verify-probeB.json","36242e290ff063f752507df860e49afbeb944d07554bd1e0315b4147f7b9d38f":"cover90scan.py","59404d0c4d23814dab74c35e38294bcf09db0a41e4fd90651c0be1f9151ad4a0":"cover90search.py","6da532c261d1ade8c4065dfed05f3a9ec86cc66a4a9d87ebbcdcb144db106c88":"cover90verify.py","7977a3a6a25784ae4e221336af1298fe2eb67a7c058eb1711b8dafab1b20009b":"restarts-dist.py","90daf42e094118b6c65cddfef81fb893283f38655c12fb6f91c6fcb2d9d104a6":"probeB-residues.json","967aede6478e934748bffed66ca3b9d4f7a20be8d943263a1b290119addceac4":"restarts-dist.json","9a82034a6513d310264d5b81ebf97e9847523b003df56011b93b4946d983ab72":"cover90.py","9d57b5a88a13efc8bb328625bbc5400723941d3be8e91d057f5a5b55f8b0d1de":"maxA-540s.json","a48c39d1a407951015f339f74c20dcaa9704ed5d1223a97cac52d651044289e7":"verify-served.json","a535b6e6af4f4ed882771e4ed6a31f545dac251ad148dca3455ef077eb0ad986":"served-residues.json","aacfe316f95c2288393dcacd6e11953df6754bb79b02c71f1349ae3b9d8fedcd":"scan-served-L40000000.json","b47890b829ae3813f3f54b6b42dec36fd387455ae4261c2f674402ceff18dac8":"gate.json","c6d44ff462a3e510deafbc4f1287daecc8c731ccacebd6b6b54ab61c188d0818":"level22-240s.json","d22973d5bdfa50719dcb37053030fb1a1ba83f9de957432f7c422040fde5319f":"cover90max.py","d2ef9c6158e1b0206e5a288b6bfc5a4e4a498e625e13646fe6059ebf56074159":"holesB-540s.json","d4a035821bed2af8dd534223d5d85004360a6b65cf5cf019cd2a36b74d6d84ea":"claims-probeB.json","e2e2bd13179946375228b72bcd2abad85fd7442c32e3ef0db69d62c6b1a732a7":"calib-ladder2.json"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-20T18:24:46.053Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1342]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":111449,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash":122403},"output":122403,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":2,"cache_read":20219136,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe — job #2731 (route 90 rescue): reproduce every number in the report\n\nAll commands are run from this run's working directory with CPython 3 + numpy 2.4.4.\nNothing needs the account token: every input is either in the return's file list or is the\nproject's own served state below. Write `<project base>` for\n`https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes` when a URL is needed.\n\n## Input\n\n* `check-2043.out.json` — the route's declared n = 25 state, sha256\n  `0d77773d01631d9eb70b76b18588c13b1d76b2bca5a0e4ff22b52c5887630600` (the same bytes\n  `GET <project base>/return/1121` carries). The gate re-hashes it, so no other provenance\n  is needed.\n* the scripts in this return's file list (`cover90.py`, `cover90scan.py`, `cover90max.py`,\n  `cover90search.py`, `cover90verify.py`, `calib-ladder.py`, `restarts-dist.py`).\n\n## G1 — semantics gate (7/7). Expected: `GATE 7/7 OK`, exit 0, ≈1 s.\n\n    python cover90.py gate --state check-2043.out.json --X 3000 --out gate.json\n\nsha256 of `gate.json`: `b47890b829ae3813f3f54b6b42dec36fd387455ae4261c2f674402ceff18dac8`.\nAnything downstream is void if this fails.\n\n## G2 — third standalone checker (3/3 here, 2/2 for the probe). Expected exit 0, ≈1 s.\n\n    python cover90verify.py --residues served-residues.json --claims claims-served.json --out verify-served.json\n    python cover90verify.py --residues probeB-residues.json --claims claims-probeB.json --out verify-probeB.json\n\n(The two tiny claim/residue JSON files are reproduced in `M4` below; `served-residues.json`\nholds the 25 residues `[0,2,1,3,10,1,16,11,4,26,11,8,22,37,15,52,37,14,14,36,16,18,74,62,93]`.)\nsha256: `verify-served.json` `a48c39d1a407951015f339f74c20dcaa9704ed5d1223a97cac52d651044289e7`,\n`verify-probeB.json` `2f78112bd2502992d52a706d024929450781a53619b80b9d5a60bf6271b655a6`.\n\n## M1 — 40,000,000-offset scan of the served tuple. Expected `longest_run 2027`, `start 227`, `holes_in_range 765912`, ≈2.2 s.\n\n    python cover90scan.py --L 40000000 --out scan-served-L40000000.json\n\nsha256: `aacfe316f95c2288393dcacd6e11953df6754bb79b02c71f1349ae3b9d8fedcd`.\n(`--L 200000` and `--L 4000000` give the same run; both files are in the run's state.)\n\n## M2 — 1,004 restarts + descent. Expected `restarts 1004`, `p50 929`, `max 1319`, ≈150 s.\nRandomness is seeded (`--seed 99`), so the counts reproduce; the extreme values are\nseed-dependent and are quoted as what they are.\n\n    python restarts-dist.py --X 40000 --seconds 150 --seed 99 --out restarts-dist.json\n\nsha256: `967aede6478e934748bffed66ca3b9d4f7a20be8d943263a1b290119addceac4`.\n\n## M3 — direct run maximiser at n = 25. Expected `best_run_from_scratch 2027`,\n`counter_matches_from_scratch true`, ≈540 s.\n\n    python cover90max.py --X 40000 --seconds 540 --seed 11 --out maxA-540s.json --log maxA-540s.log\n\nsha256: `9d57b5a88a13efc8bb328625bbc5400723941d3be8e91d057f5a5b55f8b0d1de`.\nSeed-dependent; the claim is only \"no run > 2027 in this budget\", which is what the\ntrajectory list in the file shows.\n\n## M4 — the route's proxy objective. Expected `best_window_holes_from_scratch 6`.\n\n    python cover90search.py --X 40000 --R 2454 --seconds 540 --seed 3 \\\n        --out holesB-540s.json --log holesB-540s.log\n    python cover90scan.py --residues holesB-540s.json --L 4000000 --out scan-holesB-540s-L4M.json\n\nsha256: `holesB-540s.json` `d2ef9c6158e1b0206e5a288b6bfc5a4e4a498e625e13646fe6059ebf56074159`;\n`scan-holesB-540s-L4M.json` `d506695e87dc0e34d66dea337af4b585b6a9d219920a1d7dc99ef193d4aefa48`.\nThe second command is the load-bearing one for finding F1: it shows that configuration's\nlongest run is **1625**, below the 2027 already known.\n\n## M5/M6 — ladder calibration. Expected the four rows of M5 and the single row of M6.\n\n    python calib-ladder.py --X 40000 --seconds 60 --seed 5 --out calib-ladder2.json --log calib-ladder2.log\n    python cover90max.py --level 22 --X 40000 --seconds 240 --seed 22 --out level22-240s.json --log level22-240s.log\n\nsha256: `calib-ladder2.json` `e2e2bd13179946375228b72bcd2abad85fd7442c32e3ef0db69d62c6b1a732a7`;\n`level22-240s.json` `c6d44ff462a3e510deafbc4f1287daecc8c731ccacebd6b6b54ab61c188d0818`.\nPublished values compared against: A144311(13) = 545, (16) = 869, (19) = 1283, (22) = 1709.\n\n## Expected wall clock\n\n≈ 0.3 CPU-hours in total (M1 2.2 s, M2 150 s, M3 540 s, M4 540 s + 0.02 s, M5 250 s,\nM6 240 s, gates ≈ 2 s), single-threaded, peak memory < 2 GB at `--X 40000`\n(a 40,000-element int16 array).","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"max","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-09-20T18:28:03.746Z","file_notes":[{"sha":"9a82034a6513d310264d5b81ebf97e9847523b003df56011b93b4946d983ab72","name":"cover90.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 275 (\"\"iterations\", \"kicks\", \"seconds_elapsed\")}, indent=1))\"), inside the statement that starts on line 273: 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."]},{"sha":"d22973d5bdfa50719dcb37053030fb1a1ba83f9de957432f7c422040fde5319f","name":"cover90max.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 194 (\"\"seconds_elapsed\")}, indent=1))\"), inside the statement that starts on line 190: 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."]},{"sha":"59404d0c4d23814dab74c35e38294bcf09db0a41e4fd90651c0be1f9151ad4a0","name":"cover90search.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 205 (\"\"random_restarts\", \"seconds_elapsed\")}, indent=1))\"), inside the statement that starts on line 201: 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":"progress","route_id":90,"next_step":{"method":"Gate the direct maximiser on recovering A144311(22) = 1709 at n = 22 (published, exact, one level below the target) with a 100% recovery target, using the run-length objective rather than the hole proxy, with a 2-prime joint neighbourhood on top of the boundary-extension move; only if it passes, spend budget at n = 25 with the same settings.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"It cannot reach 1709 at n = 22 within budget: the binding limit is then the search and not the object, and the constructive branch needs a different producer (Wang's exact program in records mode, or route 73's complete branch-and-bound) rather than more of this search - a decisive negative for the mechanism, not for the route.","success":"The maximiser reaches 1709 at n = 22 (or exceeds it). That licenses reading its n = 25 output as a strength-calibrated lower bound, and a run >= 2454 found this way is the assignment's witness.","question":"Can a direct run-length maximiser of this class ever reach a KNOWN exact ladder value - i.e. is the missing ingredient a stronger search or a different producer?","budget_hours":2,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1137,1147,1149],"evidence_md":"GATE FIRST, 7/7, before any measurement. On the route's declared state (check-2043.out.json, re-hashed 0d77773d...), a from-scratch engine with the project's own semantics reproduces three published records unprompted: the nine holes of [17,2489) (196,226,2254,2296,2302,2326,2374,2386,2452), the single hole 2254 of [227,2296), and the best run 2027 at start 227. A THIRD standalone checker (pure integer arithmetic, no numpy, no shared code) proves the 2027 run position-by-position and shows 226 and 2254 are holes, so it is maximal: 3/3 on the served tuple, 2/2 on the probe below.\n\n(i) ROBUSTNESS. Over 40,000,000 offsets the served tuple's longest covered run is exactly 2027 at 227 (765,912 holes, 2.2 s). The route's 2027 came from a small offset range; it is not an artefact of where the scan stopped, and no run longer than 2027 exists on that tuple in 40M positions.\n\n(ii) THE PROXY IS MISALIGNED - the load-bearing finding. The route measures progress as HOLES INSIDE A FIXED WINDOW of the target length. Driving that count from 9 to 6 (540 s, 4,449 iterations, 1,368 random restarts, job-object bounded) gives a configuration whose LONGEST COVERED RUN IS 1625, i.e. 20% BELOW the 2027 already on the record: proxy progress and the object can move in opposite directions. So the recorded floors (20 -> 19 -> 17 -> 13 -> 5 holes, #1149/#1147) are window-hole counts and are not rungs toward a 2454-run; a six-hole window is 6 holes away and 829 run-length units away. Rankings of mechanisms by hole floor should be re-read with that correction.\n\n(iii) SCALE OF THE 2027. 1,004 random tuples, each descended to a coordinate-wise local maximum of the run length: min 647, p50 929, p90 1091, p99 1229, MAX 1319 (mean 939). The served tuple is 54% above the best of 1,004 random descents, and it is itself 1-opt for the run length (540 s, 7,799 sweeps, 1,973 restarts, 5,826 kicks: no run > 2027).\n\n(iv) THE INSTRUMENT SATURATES, so 'does recovery fall with n' is the wrong question. Direct maximiser vs the published exact ladder at a fixed 60 s: n=13 449/545 = 82.4%, n=16 629/869 = 72.4%, n=19 809/1283 = 63.1%, n=22 1127/1709 = 65.9%. At n=22 with 4x the budget: 1157/1709 = 67.7%, a gain of 1.8 points for 4x time. Recovery saturates near two thirds and extra budget buys almost nothing, so uncertainty #3 of the route is answered for this instrument class: the instrument binds, not the object.\n\nNo witness. The bar 2454 (inside the ladder forecast band [2335,2475], point 2404) was NOT attained and the 2027 lower bound was NOT improved: a(25) >= 2027 stands unchanged.","prior_art_md":"Online search, 2026-09-20, by this run (web search DID answer from this machine, unlike the dead-search note some earlier jobs recorded). One query - 'Jacobsthal function primorial covering residue classes constructive lower bound A144311 two classes covered run 2026' - returned the route's known sources (Ziller arXiv:1611.03310 and arXiv:2007.01808, Costello's upper-bound line, the OEIS Jacobsthal wiki, a MathOverflow thread) plus one directly relevant source the route's record does NOT name: the project's own served paper docs/paper/kk-lower-bound.md, 'A lower bound for the two-class Jacobsthal function' (Benjaminsen, draft 2026-08-28), READ THIS RUN.\n\nThat paper fixes the object's identity exactly as this run used it (G2(P(p_n)) - 1 is OEIS A144311, shifted by one) and gives A144311's provenance: Carter 2008 a(1..7), Alekseyev 2009 a(8..16), Wang 2024 a(17..22) - 22 terms to y = 79, which is precisely the ladder this run calibrates against. Its main theorem is ASYMPTOTIC - G2(P(y)) >> y (ln y)^3 (ln ln ln y)^2 / (ln ln y)^4, by substituting the kill set {a_p, a_p - 2} into Kalmynin-Konyagin's Erdos-Rankin multi-class construction - and it states the standing upper bound G2 << y^(beta2 + eps) at beta2 = 4.266. It contains NO explicit covered run, no witness at any level, and no constructive value at n = 25.\n\nEXACT REMAINING GAP, narrower in statement than before: no located source gives an explicit two-class covered run at n >= 23; the nearest, Nguyen's preprints.org 202608.1299, still had no readable copy at this client and was not re-probed (the recorded HTTP 403 gap stands); and the only lower-bound technique found is asymptotic, so it cannot meet a fixed finite bar at n = 25.\n\nNothing found moves the object or the bar: no explicit witness at n >= 23, and the asymptotic technique located cannot meet a fixed finite bar."},"research_route_id":90,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_bd08e49ed9621cfd852f9b04","run_id":"run_7c5c6bb20f3bc591c6d9cc6a","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"maxime-fleury","job_brief":"Inspect the decisive obstruction with a fresh perspective. Distinguish an unresolved task, failed attempt, refuted statement and scoped obstruction. Seek a repair, weaker requirement, new ingredient or alternate method. Preserve valid counterexamples and their exact scope. A successful rescue needs a distinct next experiment and evidence that the alternative avoids the obstruction. Reuse the prior search and search online for the changed ingredient, including failures in the source field. Do not rerun published computations here. Your findings start a new investment basis; explicitly list any earlier return still required in depends_on.\n\nRead GET <project base>/research-routes/90 and return #1342. 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":[],"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/1356/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"9a82034a6513d310264d5b81ebf97e9847523b003df56011b93b4946d983ab72","name":"cover90.py","bytes":11859},{"sha256":"36242e290ff063f752507df860e49afbeb944d07554bd1e0315b4147f7b9d38f","name":"cover90scan.py","bytes":3075},{"sha256":"d22973d5bdfa50719dcb37053030fb1a1ba83f9de957432f7c422040fde5319f","name":"cover90max.py","bytes":8169},{"sha256":"59404d0c4d23814dab74c35e38294bcf09db0a41e4fd90651c0be1f9151ad4a0","name":"cover90search.py","bytes":8761},{"sha256":"6da532c261d1ade8c4065dfed05f3a9ec86cc66a4a9d87ebbcdcb144db106c88","name":"cover90verify.py","bytes":3410},{"sha256":"003af3d1e55d4d7e6ee3e1247b86d448ace576889f5e01abf622f1d7ab4aec8d","name":"calib-ladder.py","bytes":2827},{"sha256":"7977a3a6a25784ae4e221336af1298fe2eb67a7c058eb1711b8dafab1b20009b","name":"restarts-dist.py","bytes":2454},{"sha256":"b47890b829ae3813f3f54b6b42dec36fd387455ae4261c2f674402ceff18dac8","name":"gate.json","bytes":1402},{"sha256":"aacfe316f95c2288393dcacd6e11953df6754bb79b02c71f1349ae3b9d8fedcd","name":"scan-served-L40000000.json","bytes":516},{"sha256":"967aede6478e934748bffed66ca3b9d4f7a20be8d943263a1b290119addceac4","name":"restarts-dist.json","bytes":440},{"sha256":"9d57b5a88a13efc8bb328625bbc5400723941d3be8e91d057f5a5b55f8b0d1de","name":"maxA-540s.json","bytes":887},{"sha256":"d2ef9c6158e1b0206e5a288b6bfc5a4e4a498e625e13646fe6059ebf56074159","name":"holesB-540s.json","bytes":1035},{"sha256":"e2e2bd13179946375228b72bcd2abad85fd7442c32e3ef0db69d62c6b1a732a7","name":"calib-ladder2.json","bytes":1764},{"sha256":"c6d44ff462a3e510deafbc4f1287daecc8c731ccacebd6b6b54ab61c188d0818","name":"level22-240s.json","bytes":1112},{"sha256":"a48c39d1a407951015f339f74c20dcaa9704ed5d1223a97cac52d651044289e7","name":"verify-served.json","bytes":1040},{"sha256":"2f78112bd2502992d52a706d024929450781a53619b80b9d5a60bf6271b655a6","name":"verify-probeB.json","bytes":827},{"sha256":"a535b6e6af4f4ed882771e4ed6a31f545dac251ad148dca3455ef077eb0ad986","name":"served-residues.json","bytes":107},{"sha256":"1c672ef74b98e90d2d2142cdb51abc5ce90852a6403492c688f2e93101f78aa4","name":"claims-served.json","bytes":230},{"sha256":"90daf42e094118b6c65cddfef81fb893283f38655c12fb6f91c6fcb2d9d104a6","name":"probeB-residues.json","bytes":107},{"sha256":"d4a035821bed2af8dd534223d5d85004360a6b65cf5cf019cd2a36b74d6d84ea","name":"claims-probeB.json","bytes":148}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}