{"id":1421,"job_id":2812,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #2812 (explore, rescue): route 131 -- the partition is by writer and attribution, not by index vs note\n\nAttempt `aea74fea0aa24bb7eb5a4dbde4df9374`. Outcome: **promising** (distinct next experiment, evidence below).\nRung: **heuristic** -- the fields are measured, the batch-overwrite inference is drawn from four paths.\nNo mathematical claim is touched, no row verdict is recomputed, and the published index byte-compare is **not**\nre-run.\n\n## The obstruction, and why it is narrower than it reads\n\n#1417 refuted the route's premise by executing the served generator on all 588 served inputs and obtaining a\nbyte-identical `research/QUESTIONS.md` (sha256 `07cadf7f...`): under *index generation* 0 rows revert. That is\ncorrect and it is not the whole registry: the registry has a second regenerator -- the batch that writes the\ndocument history -- and #1413's measurement already shows it reverting 10 of 10 documents with history, every\ntime towards the weaker claim.\n\n## What this run adds (new axis: attribution)\n\nReading `/history/<path>` for the four document paths the brief names (plus zero-version\n`shadow-prereg.md`):\n\n1. All four reverted v3 revisions carry the **same** `created_at`, `2026-09-16T10:42:20.999Z`, to the\n   millisecond, across `research/history/staging`, `paper/` and `paper/proposals/`: **one batch write**, not\n   per-document edits.\n2. Every v3 has `return_id: null`; every v2 carries one (152, 85, 20, 13) and the contributing handle. The batch\n   is the only writer in this record that produces revisions with **no return attribution**.\n3. For all four (and for the zero-version `shadow-prereg`), both `history.publications` entries carry the\n   v1/served sha -- never the verified v2 sha. The published artifact follows the batch.\n\n## The rescue\n\nThe durable/ephemeral partition is a property of the **writer**, not of whether an edit lands in the index or the\nnote. That reopens the route without contradicting #1417 (different writer, invisible to a byte-compare) and\nsharpens its conclusion: \"the durable repair is note-side\" is **not established**, because #80's pinned blob\nre-applied as a byte copy would write a revision with `return_id: null` and a content_sha equal to no prior\nversion -- the exact signature of the batch's own v3 -- so it carries no attribution that could defend it at the\nnext batch. The failing instance is likewise not \"the correction is absent\" but \"the carrier note has no\nreturn-attributed revision at all\".\n\n## Next\n\n`research.next_step` keys the one-path controlled test (re-apply #80's blob through the attributed write path,\nthen re-read the history) with the falsifier written in advance over the other 6 documents; success either gives\nroute 128 a one-line re-apply rule or names the durable carrier set.\n\n## Status, limits, hygiene\n\nRoute 131 stays `blocked` in investment state unless the reviewer moves it; this return adds no route state\nchange. Files: `work/{PROGRESS.md,fetch.py,build_payload.py,transcript.scrubbed.jsonl,route131.json,\nhist_*.json}`. Gaps: `GET /returns/1417` -> 404 (text used from the brief and the route record);\n`GET /returns/1414` -> 404 in the predecessor run. Usage: this application exposes no per-turn token counts;\nleft **pending**, never estimated. Transcript exported to /tmp, scrubbed, raw deleted; credentials never in the\ntree. 44 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict; one on this route is #1413, which this session cannot\ndecide.","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-22T21:48:24.978Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1413,1417,80],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"codex","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Reproduce this rescue (~3 min, no computation, 6 HTTP GETs):\n1. `python3 work/fetch.py` -> route131.json (HTTP 200) and hist_*.json; note `GET /returns/1417` -> 404.\n2. In hist_derive_0904.json / hist_xchan_at29.json / hist_beta2_note.json / hist_prop_staircase.json read\n   `versions`: v3 has `return_id: null` and `content_sha` equal to v1's, at `2026-09-16T10:42:20.999Z`\n   in all four; `publications` carry the v1 sha in both entries.\n3. Read hist_shadow_prereg.json: `versions` empty, two publications on the served sha -- the carrier has no\n   attributed revision.\n4. `python3 work/build_payload.py` -> payload.json; `sah.py check-payload --in work/payload.json`.\nThen the falsifier in `research.next_step` (other 6 documents; controlled write at #80's path).","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":15},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":131,"next_step":{"method":"(1) FALSIFIER FIRST, on the other 6 documents #1402/#1413 counted: GET /history/<path> and test the batch signature (v3.content_sha == v1.content_sha; v3.return_id is null; the v3 created_at instants coincide across trees; publications sha == v1 sha). Any v3 with a non-null return_id, a distinct created_at, or a content_sha differing from v1 refutes the single-batch overwrite and restores the per-document reading. (2) CONTROLLED WRITE: re-apply #80's pinned blob (ccdb59c0, already published at /files/) as one revision of research/history/staging/shadow-prereg.md through the write path that records return attribution, then re-read /history: carried = the new sha is the latest version after the next batch; clobbered = a further revision equal to the pre-batch content appears at a new common instant. (3) If no write path can record return_id for a note revision, then the durable carrier is a path OUTSIDE the batch's source set: enumerate it and amend route 128's plan from 'copy the blob in' to 'carry the correction in the paper source'.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"No refuted step is needed to stop: if step 1 refutes the batch signature or step 2 shows the controlled revision carried, record the per-document reading and the carried case as the answer; do not restate the registry as unsafe, and do not re-run the index byte-compare, which #1417 has settled for this snapshot.","success":"Either attribution survives the batch -- durable class = return-attributed revisions, and route 128 gets a one-line rule for re-applying the 10 verified blobs -- or the batch is shown to re-derive regardless of attribution, in which case the durable class is the set of paths outside its source set, named, and the same rule follows.","question":"Is a note revision written with a return attribution carried through the next mirror batch, or does the batch re-derive every path in its source set and write a fresh revision with return_id null (the signature measured here for all four v3 revisions at one instant)?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":["python3"],"required_sources":["route_131","history_endpoint","files_ccdb59c0","return_1413","return_1417","return_80"]},"depends_on":[1413,1417,80],"evidence_md":"The obstruction is refuted for the INDEX writer only; the registry has a second regeneration (the mirror batch) that reverts 10/10 documents with history, and it is identifiable by a signature #1413/#1417 did not read: attribution fields.\n\nSCOPED MEASUREMENT (this run, 5 GET <base>/history/<path>, HTTP 200, bodies saved as work/hist_*.json; NOT a re-run of #1413's 1202-document enumeration -- 4 paths are the ones the brief names, and the axis read is new: author/return_id/created_at):\n- research/history/staging/derive-0904-L7-transfer.md: v1 sha 6ffd659c (author null, return_id null, 09-12T15:10:49.306Z); v2 sha c60a250d (Benjaminsen, return_id 152, .310Z); v3 sha 6ffd659c == v1 (Benjaminsen, return_id NULL, 09-16T10:42:20.999Z). publications: 2 entries, BOTH sha 6ffd659c (ids 571, 1782).\n- research/history/staging/xchan-at29-prereg.md: v2 6566bc15 (natepac, return_id 85); v3 3f9eeaf1 == v1, return_id NULL, SAME instant; publications 2, both v1 sha.\n- paper/beta2-note.md: v2 f1a6a6fe (return_id 20); v3 c6c23609 == v1, return_id NULL, SAME instant; publications 2, both v1 sha.\n- paper/proposals/prop-staircase-note.md: v2 330e8399 (return_id 13); v3 ee28e195 == v1, return_id NULL, SAME instant; publications 2, both v1 sha.\n- research/history/staging/shadow-prereg.md: versions 0; publications 2 (832, 2043), both sha ae3a10ec.\n\nTHREE NEW FACTS. (1) All four v3 revisions carry the SAME created_at, 2026-09-16T10:42:20.999Z, to the millisecond, across three different trees (research/history/staging, paper/, paper/proposals): one batch write, not per-document edits. (2) Every v3 has return_id null while every v2 carries a return_id (152, 85, 20, 13) plus the contributing handle; the batch is the only writer in this record that produces a revision with no return attribution. (3) For all four, and for zero-version shadow-prereg, BOTH entries in history.publications carry the v1/served sha, never the verified v2 sha -- the published artifact follows the batch, not the verified revision.\n\nWHAT THIS CHANGES. #1417 asked \"does the index equal generate(notes)\" and answered yes byte-for-byte; correct, but it decides only the index stage. The route's success sentence is about a regeneration of the registry, and the registry's other regenerator is this batch, which reverts 10/10 documents with history (direction measured by #1413) and is uniform in this run's four. So the partition is not empty and not index-side: it is a property of the WRITER, not of where the edit is written. The failing instance is then not \"the correction is absent\" but \"the carrier note has no return-attributed revision at all (shadow-prereg: 0 versions)\". #1417's \"the durable repair is note-side\" is therefore not established: #80's pinned blob re-applied as a byte copy would write a revision with return_id null and a content_sha equal to no prior version -- the exact signature of the batch's v3 (new sha nothing else references, no return attribution) -- so it is indistinguishable from batch output and carries no attribution that could defend it at the next batch. Reconciliation of the two readings: the index-stage test (cheap, already green) and the batch-stage test are neither redundant nor in conflict; they answer different writers, and #1417's byte-compare cannot see the batch at all. No mathematical claim is touched; no row's verdict is recomputed here.\n\nSELF-LIMITS. Scope: 4 of the 10 document identities were read for attribution (the ones the brief names) plus one zero-version path; the other 6 are inferable only by the falsifier below. Both publications entries per document are reported as returned; whether they are mirror publications or returns is NOT claimed (an id in publications was already shown not to be a return id; #1417 tested 1234 and got no return). Rung: heuristic, because the batch-overwrite inference is drawn from four paths even though the fields read are measured.","prior_art_md":"Updated prior-art/search record for the CHANGED ingredient, 2026-09-22 ~21:56 UTC.\n\nCHANGED INGREDIENT. The route's failure clause was \"apply the generated index and it will be reverted\". The ingredient this return adds is not regeneration-equality (covered by #1413's record: SSOT, build provenance, forjar#247) but ATTRIBUTION as the durability criterion: a rebuild batch that re-derives a path writes a revision with no author/return attribution, so \"did my edit survive?\" is decidable from version metadata even when the byte-compare is green.\n\nONLINE SEARCH. One live query this run: \"regenerate build overwrites agent-authored revision provenance attribution \\\"no change detected\\\" content-addressed store lost edit\". RESULT: NULL -- two unrelated hits only (a vehicle-middleware patent US20190222484A1; an MDPI guidance/control PDF), no engineering source on rebuild-vs-attribution. Recorded as a null result; no source is cited from it, and nothing is inferred from it.\n\nREUSED (from the route's own record, not re-searched): the maintenance-rule prior art already on file for route 131 -- regenerate in CI and fail on diff (opensearch-rs PR #489; code-graph-rag issue #2121 \"a passing generator test never checks the committed file\"); and #1413's two-query record on SSOT / build provenance / forjar#247. Both cover the INDEX-stage rule (regenerate-and-compare); neither covers a rebuild that is itself a writer of the version history, which is where the attribution question lives.\n\nLOCAL SOURCES READ. Served version metadata, 5 paths, GET <base>/history/<path> (work/hist_*.json); the route record GET <base>/research-routes/131 (work/route131.json, 200); the issued brief's #1413 and #1417 digests. GET <base>/returns/1417 returned 404 (like #1414 for the previous run) -- #1417's text was used from the issued brief and the route record's \"Recent investigations\"; recorded as a gap.\n\nEXACT REMAINING GAP. Unchanged in kind and now split by writer: (a) INDEX stage -- closed for the 2026-09-22 snapshot by #1417 (byte-identical, 0 rows revert); (b) BATCH stage -- open: does the mirror batch re-derive every path in its source set regardless of return attribution, or is a return-attributed revision carried? A one-path controlled test decides it, and the falsifier is written in research.next_step. Until then the durable class is unknown: \"outside the batch's source set\" and \"return-attributed revision\" are both live hypotheses and the difference decides whether route 128's re-apply of #80's pinned blob is durable at all."},"research_route_id":131,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_b11364a2c1829bd461648a40","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","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/131 and return #1417. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 131, 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":"80","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1413","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1417","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/131","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1421/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}