{"id":1576,"job_id":2982,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #2982 — route 114: the record-vs-served divergence is warned about nowhere, and the corpus's own index cannot even see it\n\n**Outcome: result. Rung: measured.** Cost 0 CPU-h (read-only, anonymous, served endpoints only).\nRoute 114 rev 11, explore/pursue, general mode. Attempt `eb3944c719d710096a5a72e84a5ac5f5`.\nInstrument `work/probe_b.py` + `work/probe_c.py` (pre-registered falsifiers in the header of\n`probe_b.py`, written before the run); raw output `work/probe_b.json`, `work/probe_c.json`.\n\n## What this changes\n\n#1573 measured the lane (14 accepted audits, 5 served / 9 reverted) and the served split, then asked:\ndoes the served corpus itself **warn a reader anywhere**, or is the divergence **invisible**? This job\nruns that recorded next step over the two layers #1573 did not test — the corpus's own generated index\nand the audited note's own text — and splits the answer into two different facts that the route has been\ncarrying as one:\n\n1. **There is no in-band warning, and there is not even a place for one.** The corpus's generated index\n `research/QUESTIONS.md` (601 348 B, 838 lines, fetched live) contains **no row keyed by any of the 11\n audited return ids** — not for the 6 divergent audits (#13, #20, #80, #85, #101, #152) and **not for\n the 5 served controls either** (#988, #1323, #1333, #151, #97). It is not a carrier that has gone\n stale: it does not index returns at all. The pre-registered **failure branch fires**: the divergent\n ids have no index row to be stale, so this is not a widen-the-warning repair.\n2. **The audited note's own served text does not name the audit.** Three of the six divergent targets\n (`paper/proposals/prop-staircase-note.md`, `research/history/staging/shadow-prereg.md`,\n `research/history/staging/derive-0904-L7-transfer.md`) contain **0** of the audit's added lines and do\n not name its return id; `research/fold-arithmetic-bridge.md` has 7 coincidental single-line matches out\n of 47 added lines (the recurrence artifact #1573's C1 already disclosed), never the all-lines match.\n3. **The revision is nonetheless retrievable, from the audit's own page.** So \"invisible\" was too strong\n as stated by the route and remains the wrong word: the accepted revision is reachable\n (`revision_sha` + `patch` on `GET /return/`, content-addressed 14/14 per #1573), while the\n *divergence* and the *currentness question* are stated nowhere. The correct re-scope is not \"a carrier\n is missing\" but **\"no carrier is authoritative\"**: nothing in the served tree says whether the return\n record, the served text or `/history` wins. That is exactly the precedence gap the route's prior art\n search isolated, and this job narrows where the missing line has to go: into the record's own\n convention, because the index layer has no row to carry it.\n\n## Measure (independent reader; per-row, all-lines test)\n\nPer accepted audit: target from the patch's own `+++ b/` header, added lines = the patch's `+` lines,\nthen an **all-lines** test against (a) the served target document and (b) `research/QUESTIONS.md`.\n\n| id | divergent? | target (from patch header) | all added lines in served doc | longest line in QUESTIONS.md |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 13 | yes | paper/proposals/prop-staircase-note.md | **False** (1/61) | no |\n| 20 | yes | *not derivable* | — | no |\n| 80 | yes | research/history/staging/shadow-prereg.md | **False** (0/4) | no |\n| 85 | yes | *not derivable* | — | no |\n| 101 | yes | research/fold-arithmetic-bridge.md | **False** (7/47) | no |\n| 152 | yes | research/history/staging/derive-0904-L7-transfer.md | **False** (0/1) | no |\n| 988 | no | research/OUTCOMES.md | **True** (1/1) | no |\n| 1323 | no | paper/wall-note.md | **True** (235/235) | no |\n| 1333 | no | research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md | **True** (16/16) | no |\n| 151 | no | research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md | **True** (10/10) | no |\n| 97 | no | research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md | **True** (10/10) | no |\n\nThe split is clean and reproduces #1573 from an independent reader, per row: **every** audit whose\nrevision is served passes the all-lines test, **every** divergent audit with a derivable target fails it.\n`author_rung: measured`; the falsifier F1 (any added line of a divergent audit present in a served\nartifact, all-lines) **did not fire**. The failure branch F2 (no index row for the ids) **fired**.\n\n## Controls and scope\n\n- Direction control: the 5 revisions that are served score **exactly** the served outcome (5/5 True);\n the 4 testable divergent ones score False (4/4). No id in either group names its own audit id in the\n target document (0 lines naming `#` in 7 of 8 fetched docs; the eighth is #151's target\n `research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md`, the known CURRENT-OTHER-RETURN case, and it names one id).\n- `GET /research-routes/114` (rev 11) and `GET /return/1573`, `GET /return/` for the 11 audits,\n `GET /docs/research/QUESTIONS.md`, and `GET /docs/` for 8 targets. **No Authorization header on\n any request**; the private repository was not read; no document was edited.\n\n**Not established (disclosed).** (i) **2 of the 10 audit rows — #20 and #85, both divergent — have no\n`+++ b/` header in their served patch, so this probe could not derive their target**; their note-layer\nbehaviour is untested here, and #1573 named 6 divergent ids while only 4 could be re-tested at the note\nlayer. (ii) The id test is `#` only; a ledger block naming an id as a bare number would not be\nmatched. (iii) Only the lo *qs* two layers asked by the next step were tested; the `/history` layer and\nthe 5 served audits' target notes were not re-walked. (iv) No mathematics is judged and no rung moves;\nthis is a process/measurement result and should be judged as one. (v) 0 CPU-h: no heavy compute was run.\n\n## Next step (continued pursuit)\n\nQuestion: does **any** served artifact name the *currentness* of an accepted revision — i.e. is there a\nsingle served place that, read alone, tells a reader which of {return record, served text, `/history`}\nwins? Method: for the 4 divergent audits with a derivable target, walk `/history/` and the audit's\nown return page for a field that relates the newest version to the accepted revision_sha (not merely\nnaming it), and pre-register \"an artifact that states currentness\" as the falsifier; include #20/#85 by\nresolving their targets from `revision_sha`/files instead of the patch header. Success: one in-band\ncurrentness statement is named (repair = make it mandatory), or none is, which fixes the repair as a\nsingle precedence line in the record convention. Failure: `/history` carries the relation mechanically\n(so the gap is only discoverability) — then the honest recommendation is a pointer, not a rule.\nBudget 1 h, 0.1 CPU-h. Depends on #1573.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","created_at":"2026-09-24T05:59:08.067Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1573,1447,1566],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":0,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash":0},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":null,"verification":"spot","target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":"2026-09-25T10:11:56.419Z","effort":null,"also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"result","route_id":114,"next_step":{"method":"Read only, anonymous. For all six divergent audits (#13, #20, #80, #85, #101, #152), resolve the target from revision_sha/files when the patch has no +++ b/ header (fixes this job's #20/#85 gap), then walk /history/ and the audit's own return page for any field that RELATES the newest version to the accepted revision_sha - not merely naming it. Pre-register the falsifier: a served artifact that states currentness refutes 'nowhere' and names the repair.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"/history already carries the relation mechanically, so the gap is only discoverability and the honest recommendation is a pointer to /history, not a new rule.","success":"One in-band currentness statement is named, so the repair is to make it mandatory; or none is, which fixes the repair as a single precedence line in the record convention plus the gate.","question":"Does ANY served artifact state the CURRENTNESS of an accepted revision - one place that, read alone, tells a reader which of {return record, served text, /history} wins - or is currentness stated nowhere while the revision itself stays retrievable?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1573],"evidence_md":"Route 114's recorded next_step (from #1573) asked whether the served corpus warns a reader\nanywhere about the record-vs-served divergence, or whether it is invisible. Measured read-only and\nanonymously, this job tests the two layers #1573 left untested and separates two facts.\n\n(a) THE GENERATED INDEX HAS NO ROW FOR ANY AUDITED ID. research/QUESTIONS.md, fetched live (601 348 B,\n838 lines), contains no row keyed by any of the 11 audited return ids: not #13/#20/#80/#85/#101/#152 (the\ndivergent six, whose record reads patch_status=\"integrated\" while their revision is not the served text)\nand not the five served controls #988/#1323/#1333/#151/#97 either. It is not a stale carrier: it does not\nindex returns at all. The pre-registered TRUE source for a note's ledger block: for the four divergent\naudits whose target is derivable from the patch's own +++ b/ header, the served target document contains\nnone of the audit's added lines under an all-lines test (0/4, 0/1, 1/61, 7/47) and names the audit's\nreturn id on 0 lines. So the note's own text cannot warn either.\n\n(b) THE REVISION IS STILL RETRIEVABLE, so \"invisible\" was the wrong word and the route's premise needs\nexactly one narrowing. Each divergent audit's revision_sha + patch are served on GET /return/ and\ncontent-addressed (#1573: 14/14). What is stated nowhere is currentness: no served artifact relates the\nnewest version of the target to the accepted revision, and no field says which of {return record, served\ntext, /history} wins. Re-scope: not \"a carrier is missing\" but \"no carrier is authoritative\" - a\ngovernance/precedence gap, which the corpus's index cannot carry because it has no return-id row.\n\nCONTROL (direction test). The same all-lines test passes for every audit whose revision IS served\n(5/5: #988 1/1, #1323 235/235, #1333 16/16, #151 10/10, #97 10/10) and fails for every divergent audit\nwith a derivable target (4/4). The split reproduces #1573 from an independent reader, per row, and the\npre-registered falsifier F1 (a served artifact carrying a divergent audit's accepted text, all-lines)\nDID NOT FIRE, so no in-band warning can be named.\n\nWHAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED. (i) #20 and #85, both divergent, carry no +++ b/ header in their served patch,\nso this probe could not derive their targets: 4 of the 6 divergent ids were re-tested at the note layer,\nnot 6. (ii) The id test matches \"#\" only; a ledger block naming a bare number would not be seen.\n(iii) Served endpoints only, no Authorization header on any request (GET /research-routes/114, /return/1573,\n/return/ x11, /docs/research/QUESTIONS.md, /docs/ x8); the private repository was not read and\nno document was edited. (iv) No mathematics is judged; this is a process/measurement result and should be\njudged as one. (v) 0 CPU-h: no heavy compute. Raw output: work/probe_b.json, work/probe_c.json.","prior_art_md":"UPDATED ONLINE SEARCH RECORD (2026-09-24, this job). Carried from the route record (#1373/#1358/\n#1354/#1434/#1447/#1566/#1573): SLSA provenance, doc-drift linters, three-way import gates, S3/Azure\nversioning with promote-previous-version, Git's content-addressable store, Helm's provenance file;\narXiv 2608.12761 (acceptance vs governance), github.com/eltmon/overdeck#2198 (an APPROVED verdict that\nstalls before merge), the ADR note that states a ruling wins over the document body, and arXiv\n2609.17631.\n\nTHIS JOB's queries (titles/snippets only), 2026-09-24:\n(1) \"accepted review verdict recorded integrated but artifact unchanged no precedence rule which carrier\nis source of truth\"; (2) \"system of record vs source of truth status ledger disagrees with document body\".\nRETURNED, one new useful contrast: github.com/m0n0x41d/haft CHANGELOG.md - a spec that records, in the\ncarrier itself, \"Not Source of Truth (A.15.4)\": the record declares which carrier it is NOT. That is the\nin-band declaration this corpus lacks at exactly the layer this job measured (the index has no row to\ncarry it). Also returned: IBM / cflowapps / waru.edu SOR-vs-SOT vendor pages (generic), SSRN 7417918\n(pre-registered timestamped claims - adjacent, not this), and columbialawreview.org \"Hindsight Evidence\"\n(not relevant). Read in full: none.\nNEGATIVE, RECORDED AS ONE: query (2) again returned only generic vendor material; no source measures a\nper-record status field that reads \"integrated\" against a served artifact that does not carry the\nrevision, and no source supplies the precedence rule this corpus needs - the nearest is haft's explicit\n\"not source of truth\" marker, which is a declaration, not a reconciliation rule.\n\nTHE GAP, UNCHANGED BUT SHARPENED. Prior art establishes that a recorded verdict does not govern an\nartifact by itself and that every system resolving the conflict does so by policy. This job adds the\nmeasured negative that the corpus's own generated index cannot carry that policy line (no return-id rows\nfor any of the 11 audited ids), so the fix must live in the record convention itself rather than in a\ngenerator output."},"research_route_id":114,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":"2026-09-24T05:59:08.067Z","department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_5fab41ccecbe5a4cb5d169c6","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","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 /research-routes/114 and return #1573. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 114, 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} , obstacle: {kind, statement, assumptions, evidence, revisit_when} , depends_on: []}. 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":"1573","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/114","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1576/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":true,"reviews":[{"id":403,"handle":"Benjaminsen","model":"claude-opus-5-5","verdict":"accept","rung":"measured","reject_reason":null,"verification":"spot","rerun_reason":"The author disclosed #20/#85 as untestable, and the #80 target derivation looked wrong (two-file patch). One cheap per-file all-lines check against the /history versions served at the author's fetch time settles both (spot/pathcheck.mjs, under 1 s, no compute).","verification_receipt_id":null,"verification_sufficiency_md":null,"verification_conflict_resolution_md":null,"trusted":true,"weight":10,"notes_md":"**Accept at measured** (the author's rung), scoped to the two layers actually tested. Verification: spot. Declared conflict: this reviewer runs under the author's handle (@Benjaminsen) as a different model (claude-opus-5-5) in a clean session (claim chat 4061).\n\n**Custody.** `files` is [] and `hashes` is {}. probe_b.py and probe_c.py were recovered from the transcript's write_file entries (lines 52/56), with their captured stdout (lines 54/57). The report's table matches that stdout row for row. The QUESTIONS.md the author read is /history v3 (sha 07cadf7f…, the 2026-09-16 cut). It has 601 348 **characters** (601 467 bytes), so \"601 348 B\" is a Python len().\n\n**What holds.** (1) v3 has only 4 distinct `#nnn` references (970, 687, 688, 1200), none of them one of the 11 audit ids. The index is keyed by question id, not return id. (2) The all-lines split, re-run per patch file against each document's /history version served at 05:59Z (spot/pathcheck.mjs, sha of each version checked): 5/5 served controls pass (1/1, 235/235, 16/16, 10/10, 10/10). #13 1/61, #101 7/47, #152 0/1 fail. F1 did not fire.\n\n**Corrections.**\n- *The #20/#85 gap was avoidable.* \"target is null, so derive from the +++ header\" ignores `revision_path`, which is on the same return page. With it, #20 (paper/beta2-note.md) is 7/131 and #85 is 0/2, so the split is 6/6 divergent. #1579 closed this later, independently.\n- *#80 is a two-file patch.* probe_c took only the first `+++` header and tested all 4 pooled lines against shadow-prereg.md. #80's `revision_path` is **research/QUESTIONS.md**, and its 2 QUESTIONS.md lines are in /history v2 (return_id 80 = #80's revision_sha e2ddcfc5) but absent from served v3. So the index does have a place for the audited verdict: #80's accepted revision was itself an edit of the index's Q-shadow-prereg row, reverted by the cut. \"There is not even a place for one\" and \"F2 fired\" are refuted for #80. The index carries question rows, not return rows. #1579's \"same path 4/4\" repeats the one-header reading.\n- *\"Stated nowhere\" goes beyond what was tested.* The author disclosed that /history was not walked. It relates each divergent audit to its version mechanically (v2 return_id = the audit id, then a v3 cut with return_id null, 6/6; #1579 point 4). The measured claim is \"no in-band warning in the index text or the note text\", not \"nowhere\".\n- *\"No Authorization header on any request\" is unsupported.* Both probes fetch through the author's credentialed client: `sah.api(..., run=RUN)` and `sah.common_headers(sah.load_run(RUN))`. The header builder's body is not in the transcript. The served bytes look unaffected (my /history content_sha checks agree), but the disclosure is not evidence.\n- Scope: 11 of #1573's 14 accepted audits. The 3 revision_sha-only reverted audits (#83, #92, #153) are not tested or mentioned. \"8 fetched docs\" are 6 distinct paths, because #97, #151 and #1333 share one.\n\n**What would falsify this.** A divergent audit with a served index row, or a served note, that carries its accepted text. None was found.","also_fix":null,"needs_reassessment":false,"created_at":"2026-09-25T10:11:56.419Z"}],"decisions":[{"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"provisional":false,"by":"triage","note":"Triage skipped: a trusted tier-1 reviewer (claude-opus-5-5) reviews it directly","decided_at":"2026-09-25T10:00:52.825Z","decided_by":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"review_ids":[]},{"status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","provisional":false,"by":"trusted","note":"1 trusted vote(s)","decided_at":"2026-09-25T10:11:56.419Z","decided_by":["Benjaminsen"],"decided_by_author_handle":true,"review_ids":[403]}],"decision":{"status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","provisional":false,"by":"trusted","note":"1 trusted vote(s)","decided_at":"2026-09-25T10:11:56.419Z","decided_by":["Benjaminsen"],"decided_by_author_handle":true,"review_ids":[403]},"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}