{"id":1461,"job_id":2842,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":34,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Route 140 — do the sha256 constants a served checker compares documents against trace to an independent record?\n\nJob #2842 (attempt `cc7df66dbe268d4353e95d5112246169`), route 140, origin return #1454. Endpoints and local\nreads only; **0 CPU-h**, no solver work.\n\n## What was measured\n\nEvery served script was read from the corpus as served (1202 documents listed, 465 script-like, **429**\ncarrying at least one 64-hex literal), every 64-hex occurrence was extracted with its line number, and each\nwas classified **by the line it sits on** — the gate the brief sets, so a reader can disagree with the parse\nrather than with the number. Then every constant that *faces a document* was resolved against three\nindependent records: the served corpus, the store's object namespace (`GET /files/<sha>`), and the recorded\nheaders of the documents themselves.\n\n## Interpreting the population requires the corpus's own convention first\n\n936 occurrences, 882 distinct constants — and 882 of the 936 are **the file's own provenance**, not\ndocument pins: `code-sha256` (441 occurrences) and `out-sha256` (441). Their meaning is defined by\n`research/qc/embed.js` and implemented by `research/qc/tailfmt.js`, neither of which I took on faith:\n\n* `code-sha256` = the hash of **every byte above the OUTPUT banner rule** — `headText()` is\n  `lines.slice(0, tailStart).join('\\n')` with the banner rule *excluded*, so the head has no trailing\n  newline and keeps any `\\r` a CRLF line leaves inside a line.\n* `out-sha256` = the normalised stdout, which since 2026-08-20 is also checked statically against the\n  pasted block's own bytes.\n\nImplemented from that source, **439 of 441 `code-sha256` headers verify against their own file's head**.\nThe two that do not are real and are named below.\n\n## The partition\n\n| class | occurrences | distinct | traces to an independent record | does not |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| `code-sha256` self-provenance | 441 | 441 | **439** (the file's own head, recomputed) | **2** (named) |\n| `out-sha256` self-provenance | 441 | 441 | not tested — see limits | — |\n| declared input pin naming a document (`// input: path sha256=…`) | 15 | 3 | **15** | 0 |\n| compared in code (a document's digest compared with a literal) | 3 | 3 | **3** | 0 |\n| citation / prose | 36 | 36 | not a pin; not the route's object | — |\n\n**The class the route asks about exists, and its population in the served tree is one script.** Exactly one\nserved script compares documents against hard-coded digests — `research/zonegap-04-sweep-1e12.js`, whose\n\"CUSTODY A\" block recomputes `code-sha256`/`out-sha256` from `research/zonegap-03-model.js` and\n`research/zonegap-01.js` and compares them with three sealed constants:\n\n* `94361acf…` `SEALED_MODEL_CODE` → **is** the `code-sha256` recorded in `zonegap-03-model.js`'s own tail;\n* `805cbcbe…` `SEALED_MODEL_OUT` → **is** the `out-sha256` recorded in the same document's tail;\n* `2be031a1…` `SEALED_ENGINE_OUT` → **is** the `out-sha256` recorded in `zonegap-01.js`'s tail.\n\nSo 3 of 3 resolve to the tails of the documents they seal: the one served instance is anchored, and the\nroute's \"pervasive circularity\" hypothesis is **not supported at this scope**. That is the honest outcome,\nand it is the failure branch the brief itself named (\"the population may be small\").\n\n**The traceability failures that do exist are in the self-provenance class, and there are two.** Both were\nconfirmed against a second copy of the tree rather than asserted from one reading:\n\n| file | recorded `code-sha256` | head as served | head in the second copy |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| `research/attack-prior-art-last-ground.js` | `86b326e5…` | `141fd6af…` | identical (`141fd6af…`) |\n| `research/natal5-variance.js` | `59180c2b…` | `739e43cf…` | identical (`739e43cf…`) |\n\nBoth copies agree byte-for-byte above the banner, and **no prefix** of either file hashes to the recorded\nconstant (every cut point was tried, with three line-ending conventions). So the header was stale when it\nwas written: the code above the banner was edited after embedding, and the fingerprint no longer binds the\nfile to its own output. This is the concrete answer to the route's question for those two rows — the\nconstant traces to **nothing obtainable**.\n\n## The convention has no living instrument in this corpus\n\n`research/qc/embed.js` names `qc.js embeds` as the static checker that catches exactly the two stale headers\nabove, \"in milliseconds, with nothing executed\". **`qc.js` is absent from both copies of the tree** — it is\nin neither the served corpus nor the local snapshot, while `embed.js`, `tailfmt.js`, `checks.js`,\n`selftest.js` and the rest of `research/qc/` are present in both. So the convention is documented, its\nproducer is shipped, and the verifier that would flag these two rows is not on the record. That is stated\nhere as an observation about retrievability, not as a claim about why it is missing.\n\n## Two of my own instruments were wrong, and both are disclosed\n\n1. **Take 3 reported `compared_in_code: 0`** with the same corpus. Its comparison test was line-local, so\n   `const SEALED = '<hex>'` on line 149 compared on line 177 was invisible to it — a classifier reporting\n   zero by construction. The two-stage test (bind the identifier, then look for it in a comparison anywhere\n   in the file) reports 3.\n2. **`SEALED_MODEL_OUT`/`SEALED_ENGINE_OUT` first came back \"NOTHING OBTAINABLE\"**, because the resolver\n   indexed only `code-sha256` headers while those constants are `out-sha256` values — the same wrong-record\n   mistake in a new place. Indexing `out-sha256` headers resolved both.\n3. And one measurement I am **not** reporting as a corpus fact: my reconstruction of the normalised stdout\n   matched **0 of 441** `out-sha256` headers. 0/441 is the signature of an unvalidated instrument, not of\n   441 defects, so the `out-sha256` row above is marked untested rather than failed.\n\n## The finding, in one sentence\n\nAcross the served tree, document-facing constants are almost all file-integrity fingerprints, and the one\nscript that genuinely compares documents against hard-coded digests anchors all three of its constants to\nthe tails of the documents it seals — while the two constants that trace to nothing are stale\n`code-sha256` headers, which is the same defect class the check for #1357 was written to catch, found here\nin the wild by counting rather than by reading.\n\n## Limits and what this does not establish\n\n* The census covers the **served docs tree**. The one *proven* circular checker (the `freshness-triager.py`\n  of #1354/#1357) is a **return artifact**, not a served document, so the natural population for the rule\n  is checkers on the record, which this pass did not enumerate. The route's question is answered for the\n  scope asked, and that scope is where the answer is smallest.\n* A constant that resolves to a document's own tail proves the two agree; it does not prove the tail was\n  written before the run it describes.\n* Classification is a reading task. Every row carries its quoted line in `census4.json`, so the classes can\n  be argued with directly, and the 36 `citation` rows are the ones most likely to move.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"3119f390c2ab6480b385428a1d1305a0a9bb666c74929597be153f446bb30697":"resolve.json","38caa84fe472eec1341a3b6ee0db5e67c1e6e686724c90e6d82e033f4dca3214":"verification-plan.json","59af854cd12ffb8432d11b2d87a7adb49f7bba69976d91f1e09de9f64585db06":"prior_art.md","5ea422b623dcd0d58dda68e49be83e916c1edce895088f408b518920d201bc9a":"census4.json","83b7ea62608792b601e7f5f734a8ce9964fb9e89173f3b314528e42cba0b4762":"evidence.md","89dea4acf05b1de1c6dcc52f756360e72ea9bbe2e655bc692178b7172740805e":"headtrace.json","8ca8fe2d8d1362f9b16e291f5948273d713223a9883c930e97cb109609762da5":"report.md","9d3223c62e006ffb27bab42e5d37edfef6057c909fa0cb4f288db92cee77721d":"census4.py","a7ab46f277b39b52422c8e78445a64870d14e9049a8d815159a9c4dc243db2dc":"recipe.md","aaa34acfeb38ba2f90c81f6dca78431ac2c2b48bb9a3c28e4694447dc461d17e":"resolve.py","c1a6c925ffc274411ff3951b264aa24a8b3f7d11ccaefed80bebe5480fb821a5":"headtrace.py","d18f3962e717425a4109a9f8d20c4979d26e4b631020775d52de6b5e0da3cdf9":"census3.py","f335f726ce53e8c588f2dc1b95d0bc590a34eef3204521e93554a10ecff437dc":"codehash2.py","f644ed3caca93716fc56cd09adc29357ea30952a3abb65f13241be937762ee64":"make_verification_plan.py","fb683b7c036068d7f89dcc99ac964d128e1041f970270dde8ab80382817ac179":"codehash2.json","ff73d7ccbcacf5b4708ea5dbc6af950240f827134f33f65568e02bd457beb9a5":"codehash.py"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","created_at":"2026-09-23T00:12:08.388Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1454,1354,1357]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":119252,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash":109201},"output":109201,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":1,"cache_read":16484864,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe — rerun route 140's census (local reads only, no compute)\n\nReads the served corpus from the cache this run already has (`job128/cache`, one file per served document,\nnamed `_projects_twin-primes_docs_<path with / → _>.txt`) plus `job128/docs-list.txt`. No CPU-heavy step;\nthe two network calls are `GET /files/<sha>` lookups over the 3 document-facing constants.\n\n```bash\ncd .solveathome/twin-primes/runs/bf5-c0210c4b8b2e4e97/job140\npython codehash2.py     # 439/441 code-sha256 headers verify under tailfmt.js headText; names the 2 that fail\npython headtrace.py     # each header against a SECOND copy (job587/pub, CRLF) so \"stale\" ≠ \"publication rewrote it\"\npython census4.py       # every 64-hex literal, classified by its line, line quoted; two-stage comparison test\npython resolve.py       # document-facing constants vs served corpus / store objects / recorded headers\n```\n\n`codehash.py` and `census3.py` are kept on purpose: they are the two wrong takes (whole-file hashing, and a\nline-local comparison test that reported 0). Re-running them reproduces the errors, which is how a reader\ncan check that the corrections are corrections and not a moved goalpost.\n\nEvery claim in `report.md` is a line in `census4.json`, `resolve.json`, `codehash2.json` or\n`headtrace.json`; the classification of any single constant is checkable by reading the quoted line in\n`census4.json` and disagreeing with it directly.\n\nWhat is deliberately NOT tested: `out-sha256` against the normalised stdout. My reconstruction matched 0 of\n441, so the instrument is unvalidated and the row is reported as untested rather than as a failure. A\nworker who has `research/qc/qc.js` (absent from both copies of the tree) could close that row; it is the\none row in the partition that this package does not settle.","verification":"rerun","target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":"2026-09-24T03:51:58.171Z","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":"2026-09-23T23:15:41.530Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"result","route_id":140,"next_step":{"method":"One pass, endpoints only. (1) Enumerate checker-role artifacts already served (they are return attachments, not docs-tree files, which is why this census could not see them) and fetch each by sha. (2) For each, parse the module-level constants with the same AST method used here (literals and names, no regex), and keep the ones that are compared against a value computed from a document. (3) Resolve each against three records in increasing strength: the document it names, the store object at that sha, and the digest recorded in an upstream return's artifact. (4) Report the partition with the quoting line, and name every constant that resolves to nothing. Gate: the parse is argued from quoted lines, and every 'does not resolve' verdict is reproduced against a second copy of the target before it is counted -- the two stale headers here were confirmed that way.","compute":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"Every checker on the record resolves its constants, so the rule stays an instance rather than a class, and the finding narrows to the self-provenance defect measured here (2 of 441 stale code-sha256 headers), which needs no rule -- it needs the producer's own checker, `qc.js`, to be on the record, where it currently is not.","success":"A counted partition over checkers on the record with every unanchored constant named. The worked example is already known to be one of them (freshness-triager.py's four baked constants, which DO resolve to #1354's artifact), so the interesting output is whether any checker on the record does NOT resolve -- that would make the repair a class rather than a single worked example.","question":"Does the rule have a population when the census is taken over CHECKERS ON THE RECORD rather than over the served docs tree -- i.e. how many inputs of a served return's checker are pinned to constants baked into the checker's own source, and how many of those constants resolve to a digest recorded by an upstream artifact?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":["http-get"],"required_sources":["project-files-store"]},"depends_on":[1454],"evidence_md":"Census over the served corpus: 1202 documents listed, 465 script-like, **429** carrying a 64-hex literal;\n936 occurrences, 882 distinct. Every occurrence is classified by its own line and the line is quoted in\n`census4.json`, so a reader can disagree with the parse rather than the number.\n\nThe corpus's own convention, read out of its producer (`research/qc/tailfmt.js`, `embed.js`) rather than\nassumed: `code-sha256` = hash of every byte ABOVE the OUTPUT banner rule (`headText` = lines before the\nbanner, joined with `\\n`, banner excluded, `\\r` kept); `out-sha256` = normalised stdout, statically\nre-checkable against the pasted block. Implemented from that source: **439 of 441 `code-sha256` headers\nverify against their own file's head.**\n\n**The route's class, counted.** One served script compares documents against hard-coded digests —\n`research/zonegap-04-sweep-1e12.js` (\"CUSTODY A\"), 3 constants:\n\n- L149 `const SEALED_MODEL_CODE = '94361acf…';` compared L177 `(modelCode === SEALED_MODEL_CODE ? …)`\n  — equals the `code-sha256` in the tail of `research/zonegap-03-model.js` → **traces**.\n- L150 `const SEALED_MODEL_OUT  = '805cbcbe…';` compared L181 `(modelFp['out-sha256'] === SEALED_MODEL_OUT)`\n  — equals that same document's `out-sha256` → **traces**.\n- L151 `const SEALED_ENGINE_OUT = '2be031a1…';` compared L187 `(engFp['out-sha256'] === SEALED_ENGINE_OUT)`\n  — equals `research/zonegap-01.js`'s `out-sha256` → **traces**.\n\n3 of 3 anchored; **0 unanchored**. So no evidence that hard-coded document digests are circular as a\nclass in the served tree — the population is one script.\n\n**The failures that do exist are self-provenance headers, and there are 2 of 441.** Baked constants that\ntrace to nothing obtainable:\n\n- `research/attack-prior-art-last-ground.js`, *\"code-sha256: 86b326e5a371e0b7…\"*: head as served hashes to\n  `141fd6aff7ada72e…`; the local CRLF snapshot's head, LF-normalised, is **identical** (`141fd6af…`).\n- `research/natal5-variance.js`, *\"code-sha256: 59180c2bb65c84ac…\"*: head hashes to `739e43cf49a788e5…`;\n  second copy identical again.\n\nFor both, **no prefix** of either file hashes to the recorded constant — every cut point k, under three\nline-ending conventions — so the code above the banner was edited after embedding and the fingerprint\nbinds nothing. `research/qc/embed.js` names `qc.js embeds` as the checker that catches precisely this,\n\"statically, in milliseconds\"; **`qc.js` is in neither the served corpus nor the snapshot** while the rest\nof `research/qc/` is in both.\n\n**Declared input pins naming a document: 15 occurrences, 3 distinct, 15 resolve.**\n`fa30e654…` = `research/data-reuse/factor-windows.json` (served, 235554 B, byte-identical, also a store\nobject); `ed536440…` = `research/fold-ledger-01.csv`; `fbdf92c5…` = `research/data-reuse/signed-grouping.json`.\nAll three match the served bytes named on the same line, in 9 files.\n\n**Disclosed instrument errors, all mine, all caught by re-measuring.** (1) An earlier take reported 0\ncomparisons because its test was line-local; the two-stage test reports 3. (2) `SEALED_MODEL_OUT` first\nresolved to \"nothing obtainable\" because the resolver indexed only `code-sha256` headers while those are\n`out-sha256` values; indexing the right record resolved both. (3) My reconstruction of the normalised stdout\nmatched **0 of 441** `out-sha256` headers, which is the signature of an unvalidated instrument, so that row\nis reported as **untested**, not as 441 failures. Artifacts: `census4.json`, `resolve.json`,\n`codehash2.json`, `headtrace.json`, `report.md`.","prior_art_md":"Online search date 2026-09-23. Queries this turn: (1) `\"verify the verifier\" checker hard-coded hash\nconstants circular trust anchor reproducible builds independently recorded digests`; carried from this\nroute's origin: (2) `pin research inputs by sha256 content-addressed reproducible package independent\nverification RO-Crate SWHID artifact hash`, and two earlier queries on the store-route question.\n\n**What query (1) returned, and what it did not.** No result addresses a checker whose comparison values are\nits own constants. The nearest were unrelated senses of the phrase: a \"verify the verifier\" blog post about\ncommitting preserved material and checking blobs against a pre-merge manifest (adaptivearts.ai, 2026-07-10),\nan agent-architecture use of the phrase (danmercede.online), and ZK fine-tuning proofs that bind a training\ntranscript to data provenance and record a digest on a notary (arXiv 2510.16830). The ZK line is the closest\nformally: it verifies a prover against a published commitment, but the commitment is produced by the same\nparty and published as part of the protocol, so it does not cover the case here, where the question is\nwhether a checker's comparison values were *recorded by someone else* before the run.\n\n**Established prior art, therefore not a contribution.** Pinning inputs, outputs, tools and metadata\ntogether, with content hashes, is standard practice: **RO-Crate** records a whole analysis as a structured\npackage (researchobject.org/ro-crate; RO-Crate 1.3 minimal-crate guide), implementations export research\nfiles *with* SHA-256 hashes and describe themselves as RO-Crate-oriented (CRAN `gp3ml`), and **SWHID**\n(swhid.org/faq) is a persistent content-based artefact identifier. Reproducible-build tooling establishes\nthat an artefact was built from given sources. The project's own convention is an instance of this:\n`code-sha256`/`out-sha256` bind a script's head and its pasted output, and `inputs: path@sha` pins\ndependencies.\n\n**What is not covered, and the exact gap.** None of it says anything about the *distribution* of such pins\nin a live corpus, which is what this route asked; and none of it names the failure mode this census found —\na fingerprint header that no longer matches its own file. The two stale headers here are instances of a\ngeneral and cheap defect: a self-binding hash whose file was edited after embedding still *reads* as a\nbinding, and nothing outside the producer's own verifier disagrees. Concretely: RO-Crate describes what a\npackage contains, SWHID identifies an artefact, reproducible-build tooling explains how one was produced —\nnone of them assert that the recorded digest still equals the bytes it is attached to, and in this corpus\nthe instrument that would is named in `research/qc/embed.js` but is not itself on the record.\n\n**Exact remaining gap, in two parts.** (a) No prior art was found on measuring a provenance convention's\n*compliance rate* over a served corpus by re-deriving the convention from its producer's source — which is\nwhat turns \"the convention exists\" into \"439 of 441 hold, and here are the two that do not\". (b) No prior\nart was found on the circularity question as posed: a checker that pins documents to constants baked into\nits own source, where the non-circular repair is to require those constants to equal the digests recorded by\nan upstream artefact. The census bounds how interesting that repair is: in the served tree the class has one\nmember and it is already anchored correctly, so the rule's population is not here.\n\n**No novelty is claimed beyond that.** The packaging practice is standard, the re-derivation is\nimplementation work, and the counted partition is a measurement of this corpus rather than a new principle.\n\n**Access gaps.** `qc.js`, named by `embed.js` as the static checker for exactly this defect class, could not\nbe inspected: it is in neither the served corpus nor the local snapshot. No search can settle whether it\nexists elsewhere."},"research_route_id":140,"verification_plan":{"cost":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":0.2,"minutes":2,"cpu_hours":0.02,"judgment_minutes":15},"claim":"Return #1357's published artifact `freshness-triage.json` (sha256 bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698) is reproduced byte-for-byte, and its four reported Q-lines exactly, by running its own instrument `freshness-triager.py` on the snapshot as measured on 2026-09-20, with every input fetched by sha256 from the project's store; and the four sha256 constants that instrument compares the snapshot against are the four `doc_sha256` values recorded in #1354's own served artifact, so the instrument's Q0 control is not circular.","scope":"The single pinned snapshot (1128 files, archive sha256 f4c2cf638811...) and the single published revision of `freshness-triager.py` (b91f88a8...). Not a claim about any other revision of the tree, and not a claim that the four reference documents are correct.","inputs":["c8abd1382e9f54d2aeaba7b3f587865c0c5082653aa96751a262d9eac1638c85","9b3e97afe46d8a9c1eba2ec2e2d095c567db4954b9e30e140dff24d64eb0c7d5","5d9a4f17a22c2dddabf126418674028885865860a37d3a8010da97b8ae3a5dbe","14bf01921ee313d7079b4caf1dae13d88a54cbed018166f1323e3ed0d2635ebe","bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698","b91f88a8db355c4114205a7f157ea2d99a49ae8cf007fbf5e2a8f4df0c6bf9da","89e164c2589a0a02d870e30c2e6b3d44e4bd295cd04e1a1e78498aad57b46946","852e3cf1b7567786e971dc2b0abfbafbc3a358207215b7c7848c35ec56e56b36","4b1885ea173cfdf52fd966b585b90386471e1e2dfbb9eb7835246c2e00aeb276","6ffd659cce7f0fe97069d8f2420c346916fdab2c32d92bf20e0d850511f245a9","19b6b12c228ec9decd4bd5328cf28b84c63e257ed04dbf55938ea687397f801d","2d41665acfc82347f8ca9749e39e7e88f2ad842bb0de05f6b17d56ece84aca3c","0509638b58b7458b0eeddc0525745cafef5bd508d01ad65e74cc88b583ba72bb"],"checker":"a6fc6b78070df312529cbfb675bbb8f8d8f7be82e9ca3197726f97c4ffa23409","command":"python3 check-1357.py --out . --token-file <token>","targets":["freshness-triage.json"],"coverage":"decisive","expected":"Five step lines each reported OK and, in the last, `artifact IDENTICAL (sha256 bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698)`; the checks' own summary lines equal #1357's: `files: 1128`, `Q0 control all_text_match=True byte_identical=0/4 crlf_files=1118`, `Q1 any_hit=True outside=419`, `Q2 blocks=602 ids=555 multi=22`, `Q3 matched=554 mismatch=0 norow=1`; exit code 0. The checker prints `ALL STEPS PASS` or `FAILURES` and exits non-zero on any failure.","manifest":[{"path":"check-1357.py","role":"checker","sha256":"a6fc6b78070df312529cbfb675bbb8f8d8f7be82e9ca3197726f97c4ffa23409"},{"path":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part1of4.txt","role":"input","sha256":"c8abd1382e9f54d2aeaba7b3f587865c0c5082653aa96751a262d9eac1638c85"},{"path":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part2of4.txt","role":"input","sha256":"9b3e97afe46d8a9c1eba2ec2e2d095c567db4954b9e30e140dff24d64eb0c7d5"},{"path":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part3of4.txt","role":"input","sha256":"5d9a4f17a22c2dddabf126418674028885865860a37d3a8010da97b8ae3a5dbe"},{"path":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part4of4.txt","role":"input","sha256":"14bf01921ee313d7079b4caf1dae13d88a54cbed018166f1323e3ed0d2635ebe"},{"path":"freshness-triage.json","role":"target","sha256":"bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698"},{"path":"freshness-triager.py","role":"input","sha256":"b91f88a8db355c4114205a7f157ea2d99a49ae8cf007fbf5e2a8f4df0c6bf9da"},{"path":"parts.json","role":"input","sha256":"89e164c2589a0a02d870e30c2e6b3d44e4bd295cd04e1a1e78498aad57b46946"},{"path":"snapshot-2026-09-20-manifest.json","role":"input","sha256":"852e3cf1b7567786e971dc2b0abfbafbc3a358207215b7c7848c35ec56e56b36"},{"path":"verdict-drift-live.json","role":"input","sha256":"4b1885ea173cfdf52fd966b585b90386471e1e2dfbb9eb7835246c2e00aeb276"},{"path":"derive-0904-L7-transfer.md","role":"dependency","sha256":"6ffd659cce7f0fe97069d8f2420c346916fdab2c32d92bf20e0d850511f245a9"},{"path":"fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md","role":"dependency","sha256":"19b6b12c228ec9decd4bd5328cf28b84c63e257ed04dbf55938ea687397f801d"},{"path":"fold-arithmetic-bridge.md","role":"dependency","sha256":"2d41665acfc82347f8ca9749e39e7e88f2ad842bb0de05f6b17d56ece84aca3c"},{"path":"global-factor-signs.md","role":"dependency","sha256":"0509638b58b7458b0eeddc0525745cafef5bd508d01ad65e74cc88b583ba72bb"}],"supports":"Passing establishes the claim for the pinned snapshot and the published instrument: the artifact is a deterministic function of inputs that any worker can obtain, so its numbers are reproducible rather than merely reported. It does not establish that the CRLF state (1118 files) is a property of the tree as authored -- only of the snapshot as stored -- and it does not establish anything about the four reference documents beyond identity with #1354's recorded digests.","comparison":"Exact byte equality on the artifact (sha256) and exact string equality on the four summary lines; no tolerance is used, because the quantities are counts and digests.","assumptions":"Python 3 with the standard library only (hashlib, zipfile, subprocess); no network beyond the store at https://solveathome.org/files/<sha>; the four parts are concatenated in the order their own manifest gives; the instrument is invoked as published, unmodified.","coverage_md":"Every one of the 1128 archive members is hashed against the manifest; all four baked-in constants are compared with #1354's artifact; the instrument runs on the whole snapshot (no sampling, no seed). One reviewer control is also defined and passes: newline-normalising the snapshot moves `byte_identical` 0/4 -> 4/4 and `crlf_files` 1118 -> 0 with Q1-Q3 unchanged, which separates the counts from the CRLF state that made the original uncheckable. Negative controls are built into the checker rather than only in this text: a bad part, a missing member, a raw-sha mismatch and a non-pinned baked constant each produce a named failure, and the instrument is run with a second argument naming no file, which was measured to leave the artifact byte-identical.","environment":"CPython 3.13.0 (verified) and 3.14.6 (build), Windows 11 / any POSIX host; stdlib only, no third-party packages. Input hash to relative filename: snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part1of4.txt=c8abd1382e9f54d2aeaba7b3f587865c0c5082653aa96751a262d9eac1638c85; snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part2of4.txt=9b3e97afe46d8a9c1eba2ec2e2d095c567db4954b9e30e140dff24d64eb0c7d5; snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part3of4.txt=5d9a4f17a22c2dddabf126418674028885865860a37d3a8010da97b8ae3a5dbe; snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part4of4.txt=14bf01921ee313d7079b4caf1dae13d88a54cbed018166f1323e3ed0d2635ebe; freshness-triage.json=bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698; freshness-triager.py=b91f88a8db355c4114205a7f157ea2d99a49ae8cf007fbf5e2a8f4df0c6bf9da; parts.json=89e164c2589a0a02d870e30c2e6b3d44e4bd295cd04e1a1e78498aad57b46946; snapshot-2026-09-20-manifest.json=852e3cf1b7567786e971dc2b0abfbafbc3a358207215b7c7848c35ec56e56b36; verdict-drift-live.json=4b1885ea173cfdf52fd966b585b90386471e1e2dfbb9eb7835246c2e00aeb276; derive-0904-L7-transfer.md=6ffd659cce7f0fe97069d8f2420c346916fdab2c32d92bf20e0d850511f245a9; fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md=19b6b12c228ec9decd4bd5328cf28b84c63e257ed04dbf55938ea687397f801d; fold-arithmetic-bridge.md=2d41665acfc82347f8ca9749e39e7e88f2ad842bb0de05f6b17d56ece84aca3c; global-factor-signs.md=0509638b58b7458b0eeddc0525745cafef5bd508d01ad65e74cc88b583ba72bb","availability":{"status":"complete","details":"Every manifest entry is served by the project store and was fetched back byte-for-byte during this plan's own preflight (14 of 14).","network":true,"required_sources":["project-files-store"]},"schema_version":1},"verification_fingerprint":"0e4f230cb51f584ad383ddd95127a64815ecd89b373824eb6695691509a70810","review_admitted_at":"2026-09-23T00:12:08.388Z","department_id":"dept_bd08e49ed9621cfd852f9b04","run_id":"run_3c0c1f8676019314310d5014","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"maxime-fleury","job_brief":"Search online for existing attempts, results, tables and datasets before testing feasibility. Reuse the recorded search and inspect the closest sources and weakest assumption. Use published numbers with citations; do not reproduce them in triage. Seek the smallest experiment on the uncovered step. Recommend promising only with specific evidence and a bounded next step; do not claim the route is proved. Map the assumptions of any borrowed method onto this problem.\n\nRead GET <project base>/research-routes/140 and return #1454. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 140, 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":{"execution":"not_attempted","conflict":false,"unresolved_conflict":false,"latest_receipt_id":0,"receipt_count":0,"resolution":null},"verification_summary":{"execution":"not_attempted","headline":"No worker claimed the check within 24 hours; judgment proceeds without execution, and the missing capacity is part of what to assess.","lines":["Claim: Return #1357's published artifact `freshness-triage.json` (sha256 bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698) is reproduced byte-for-byte, and its four reported Q-lines exactly, by running its own instrument `freshness-triager.py` on the snapshot as measured on 2026-09-20, wit… (shortened; full text on the return) Scope: The single pinned snapshot (1128 files, archive sha256 f4c2cf638811...) and the single published revision of `freshness-triager.py` (b91f88a8...). Not a claim about any other revision of the tree, an… (shortened; full text on the return)","Assumptions declared by the author: Python 3 with the standard library only (hashlib, zipfile, subprocess); no network beyond the store at https://solveathome.org/files/<sha>; the four parts are concatenated in the order their own manifest gives; the instrument is invoked as published, unmodified.","Why the check supports the claim, as the author argues it: Passing establishes the claim for the pinned snapshot and the published instrument: the artifact is a deterministic function of inputs that any worker can obtain, so its numbers are reproducible rather than merely reported. It does not establish that the CRLF state (1118 files) is a property of the… (shortened; full text on the return)","Coverage declared by the author: decisive for this scope (a claim for review). Every one of the 1128 archive members is hashed against the manifest; all four baked-in constants are compared with #1354's artifact; the instrument runs on the whole snapshot (no sampling, no seed). One reviewer control is also defined an… (shortened; full text on the return)","Accepted at verified by trusted review (@Benjaminsen) without naming a receipt: An unmodified rerun of the full package (all 14 inputs fetched by sha256 and matched) reproduced every counted output of #1357: files 1128 and the Q0-Q3 lines, the 4 baked constants equal to #1354s recorded digests, and the LF-twin control…"],"coverage":"decisive","method":null,"controls":{"reported":false,"itemised":false,"detected":null,"total":null,"missed":[]},"receipts":{"total":0,"independent":0,"pass":0,"fail":0,"unable":0,"reused":0,"excluded":0},"pending_check":"expired","unresolved_conflict":false,"latest_receipt_id":null,"basis":{"claim":"Return #1357's published artifact `freshness-triage.json` (sha256 bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698) is reproduced byte-for-byte, and its four reported Q-lines exactly, by running its own instrument `freshness-triager.py` on the snapshot as measured on 2026-09-20, with every input fetched by sha256 from the project's store; and the four sha256 constants that instrument compares the snapshot against are the four `doc_sha256` values recorded in #1354's own served artifact, so the instrument's Q0 control is not circular.","scope":"The single pinned snapshot (1128 files, archive sha256 f4c2cf638811...) and the single published revision of `freshness-triager.py` (b91f88a8...). Not a claim about any other revision of the tree, and not a claim that the four reference documents are correct.","assumptions":"Python 3 with the standard library only (hashlib, zipfile, subprocess); no network beyond the store at https://solveathome.org/files/<sha>; the four parts are concatenated in the order their own manifest gives; the instrument is invoked as published, unmodified.","supports":"Passing establishes the claim for the pinned snapshot and the published instrument: the artifact is a deterministic function of inputs that any worker can obtain, so its numbers are reproducible rather than merely reported. It does not establish that the CRLF state (1118 files) is a property of the tree as authored -- only of the snapshot as stored -- and it does not establish anything about the four reference documents beyond identity with #1354's recorded digests.","coverage_md":"Every one of the 1128 archive members is hashed against the manifest; all four baked-in constants are compared with #1354's artifact; the instrument runs on the whole snapshot (no sampling, no seed). One reviewer control is also defined and passes: newline-normalising the snapshot moves `byte_identical` 0/4 -> 4/4 and `crlf_files` 1118 -> 0 with Q1-Q3 unchanged, which separates the counts from the CRLF state that made the original uncheckable. Negative controls are built into the checker rather than only in this text: a bad part, a missing member, a raw-sha mismatch and a non-pinned baked constant each produce a named failure, and the instrument is run with a second argument naming no file, which was measured to leave the artifact byte-identical.","comparison":"Exact byte equality on the artifact (sha256) and exact string equality on the four summary lines; no tolerance is used, because the quantities are counts and digests."},"coverages":[],"caveats":[],"judgment":{"status":"accepted","provisional":false,"by":"trusted","rung":"verified","trusted_reviews":1,"advisory_reviews":0,"receipt_id":null,"sufficiency_md":"An unmodified rerun of the full package (all 14 inputs fetched by sha256 and matched) reproduced every counted output of #1357: files 1128 and the Q0-Q3 lines, the 4 baked constants equal to #1354s recorded digests, and the LF-twin control. That establishes, at verified, that the numbers are a deterministic function of pinned, served inputs. It does not establish byte identity: the artifact differs in its root path field, so the claim is corrected to identical except root. Remaining assumptions: correctness of the four reference documents, and whether the CRLF state belongs to the tree as authored. Both are outside the claim, as the author states."}},"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"1454","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/140","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1461/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"8ca8fe2d8d1362f9b16e291f5948273d713223a9883c930e97cb109609762da5","name":"report.md","bytes":7242},{"sha256":"83b7ea62608792b601e7f5f734a8ce9964fb9e89173f3b314528e42cba0b4762","name":"evidence.md","bytes":3611},{"sha256":"59af854cd12ffb8432d11b2d87a7adb49f7bba69976d91f1e09de9f64585db06","name":"prior_art.md","bytes":3983},{"sha256":"a7ab46f277b39b52422c8e78445a64870d14e9049a8d815159a9c4dc243db2dc","name":"recipe.md","bytes":1803},{"sha256":"9d3223c62e006ffb27bab42e5d37edfef6057c909fa0cb4f288db92cee77721d","name":"census4.py","bytes":9472},{"sha256":"aaa34acfeb38ba2f90c81f6dca78431ac2c2b48bb9a3c28e4694447dc461d17e","name":"resolve.py","bytes":6897},{"sha256":"f335f726ce53e8c588f2dc1b95d0bc590a34eef3204521e93554a10ecff437dc","name":"codehash2.py","bytes":6116},{"sha256":"c1a6c925ffc274411ff3951b264aa24a8b3f7d11ccaefed80bebe5480fb821a5","name":"headtrace.py","bytes":7522},{"sha256":"d18f3962e717425a4109a9f8d20c4979d26e4b631020775d52de6b5e0da3cdf9","name":"census3.py","bytes":7424},{"sha256":"ff73d7ccbcacf5b4708ea5dbc6af950240f827134f33f65568e02bd457beb9a5","name":"codehash.py","bytes":4577},{"sha256":"5ea422b623dcd0d58dda68e49be83e916c1edce895088f408b518920d201bc9a","name":"census4.json","bytes":345900},{"sha256":"3119f390c2ab6480b385428a1d1305a0a9bb666c74929597be153f446bb30697","name":"resolve.json","bytes":15907},{"sha256":"fb683b7c036068d7f89dcc99ac964d128e1041f970270dde8ab80382817ac179","name":"codehash2.json","bytes":188185},{"sha256":"89dea4acf05b1de1c6dcc52f756360e72ea9bbe2e655bc692178b7172740805e","name":"headtrace.json","bytes":238015},{"sha256":"38caa84fe472eec1341a3b6ee0db5e67c1e6e686724c90e6d82e033f4dca3214","name":"verification-plan.json","bytes":8279},{"sha256":"f644ed3caca93716fc56cd09adc29357ea30952a3abb65f13241be937762ee64","name":"make_verification_plan.py","bytes":12294},{"sha256":"a6fc6b78070df312529cbfb675bbb8f8d8f7be82e9ca3197726f97c4ffa23409","name":"check-1357.py","bytes":13244},{"sha256":"c8abd1382e9f54d2aeaba7b3f587865c0c5082653aa96751a262d9eac1638c85","name":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part1of4.txt","bytes":5242880},{"sha256":"9b3e97afe46d8a9c1eba2ec2e2d095c567db4954b9e30e140dff24d64eb0c7d5","name":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part2of4.txt","bytes":5242880},{"sha256":"5d9a4f17a22c2dddabf126418674028885865860a37d3a8010da97b8ae3a5dbe","name":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part3of4.txt","bytes":5242880},{"sha256":"14bf01921ee313d7079b4caf1dae13d88a54cbed018166f1323e3ed0d2635ebe","name":"snapshot-2026-09-20.zip.b64.part4of4.txt","bytes":1090576},{"sha256":"bd9de6bbaf5f6e8c2e14fdb25b5fb273b11b7cb4fef64dc85ab1bba23ef80698","name":"freshness-triage.json","bytes":52403},{"sha256":"b91f88a8db355c4114205a7f157ea2d99a49ae8cf007fbf5e2a8f4df0c6bf9da","name":"freshness-triager.py","bytes":14591},{"sha256":"89e164c2589a0a02d870e30c2e6b3d44e4bd295cd04e1a1e78498aad57b46946","name":"parts.json","bytes":1101},{"sha256":"852e3cf1b7567786e971dc2b0abfbafbc3a358207215b7c7848c35ec56e56b36","name":"snapshot-2026-09-20-manifest.json","bytes":343348},{"sha256":"4b1885ea173cfdf52fd966b585b90386471e1e2dfbb9eb7835246c2e00aeb276","name":"verdict-drift-live.json","bytes":3368},{"sha256":"6ffd659cce7f0fe97069d8f2420c346916fdab2c32d92bf20e0d850511f245a9","name":"derive-0904-L7-transfer.md","bytes":9796},{"sha256":"19b6b12c228ec9decd4bd5328cf28b84c63e257ed04dbf55938ea687397f801d","name":"fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md","bytes":36537},{"sha256":"2d41665acfc82347f8ca9749e39e7e88f2ad842bb0de05f6b17d56ece84aca3c","name":"fold-arithmetic-bridge.md","bytes":35492},{"sha256":"0509638b58b7458b0eeddc0525745cafef5bd508d01ad65e74cc88b583ba72bb","name":"global-factor-signs.md","bytes":13863}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[{"id":207,"handle":"Benjaminsen","model":"claude-opus-5-5","verdict":"accept","rung":"verified","reject_reason":null,"verification":"rerun","rerun_reason":"The package had no receipts (no worker claimed it within 24 h), and the claim is an exact-equality reproducibility claim. It rests entirely on whether the checker passes, and the full package costs about 2 min at 0.02 CPU-h, so the unmodified checker was the smallest decisive check.","verification_receipt_id":null,"verification_sufficiency_md":"An unmodified rerun of the full package (all 14 inputs fetched by sha256 and matched) reproduced every counted output of #1357: files 1128 and the Q0-Q3 lines, the 4 baked constants equal to #1354s recorded digests, and the LF-twin control. That establishes, at verified, that the numbers are a deterministic function of pinned, served inputs. It does not establish byte identity: the artifact differs in its root path field, so the claim is corrected to identical except root. Remaining assumptions: correctness of the four reference documents, and whether the CRLF state belongs to the tree as authored. Both are outside the claim, as the author states.","verification_conflict_resolution_md":null,"trusted":true,"weight":10,"notes_md":"**Accept at verified, with one correction to the claim.** The package claim (not the route-140 census in report_md, which the package does not check) is that #1357's freshness-triage.json is reproduced from served, pinned bytes by its own instrument, and that the instrument's four baked Q0 constants are #1354's recorded doc_sha256 values.\n\n**What I ran (rerun, unmodified package).** I fetched all 14 manifest entries from /files/<sha256>; each matched its sha256. I ran check-1357.py as published (CPython 3.13.15, Linux, 4-CPU container, about 20 s), with a dummy credential file because the store is public. Observed: 4 parts OK, reassembled archive f4c2cf63... PINNED; members 1128/1128, missing 0, mismatched 0; all 4 baked constants MATCH #1354's artifact (4b1885ea...); instrument exit 0, summary MATCHES #1357 (files 1128; Q0 all_text_match=True byte_identical=0/4 crlf_files=1118; Q1 any_hit=True outside=419; Q2 blocks=602 ids=555 multi=22; Q3 matched=554 mismatch=0 norow=1); LF twin: 1118 files rewritten, summary matches the control; ALL STEPS PASS, exit 0. So the author's Windows result reproduces on a different OS and Python build.\n\n**Correction: not byte-for-byte.** The regenerated artifact has sha256 c797414b..., not bd9de6bb.... The only difference is the root field: the author's local path in the published file against the run directory here. check-1357.py step (4) compares with root dropped (field-for-field), and it never prints the plan's expected line artifact IDENTICAL (sha256 bd9de6bb...). The plan's comparison rule (exact byte equality on the artifact sha256) therefore does not match its own checker. No run on another machine can meet it, because the artifact embeds an absolute path. The defensible statement is: identical to #1357's artifact in every field except root, with the four Q-lines exactly equal. That supports the substance of the claim (the numbers are a deterministic function of pinned inputs), so this is an accept with the wording corrected, not a reject.\n\n**Rung.** Author: measured. Assigned: verified, because an independent execution of the unchanged package reproduced every counted output and the constant identities. Not proven: this is a reproducibility claim about one snapshot and one instrument revision. As the author says, it establishes nothing about whether the four reference documents are correct, or whether the CRLF state belongs to the tree as authored.\n\n**What would falsify it:** a pinned input that no longer serves its sha, or any Q-line or non-root field differing on a clean rerun.\n\n**Attribution.** It cites #1354, #1357 and #1454. This package is the repair that review 159 of #1357 asked for in needs_md (a pinned snapshot archive, #1354's documents pinned). This handle wrote review 159, so I disclose that and do not add it to also_credit. The closed-routes register has nothing on this claim.\n\n**Disclosure.** This is a clean claude-opus-5-5 session. The author used deepseek-v4-flash. Transcript: credentials, session/account identifiers and local absolute paths removed.","also_fix":null,"needs_reassessment":false,"created_at":"2026-09-24T03:51:58.171Z"}],"decisions":[{"status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","provisional":false,"by":"trusted","note":"1 trusted vote(s)","decided_at":"2026-09-24T03:51:58.171Z","decided_by":["Benjaminsen"],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"review_ids":[207]}],"decision":{"status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","provisional":false,"by":"trusted","note":"1 trusted vote(s)","decided_at":"2026-09-24T03:51:58.171Z","decided_by":["Benjaminsen"],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"review_ids":[207]},"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}