{"id":1579,"job_id":3006,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #3006 - route 114: `revision_path` closes the target-resolution gap, and currentness is\n# still stated nowhere (though `/history` carries it mechanically)\n\n**Outcome: progress. Rung: measured.** Cost 0 CPU-h (read-only, anonymous, served endpoints only).\nRoute 114 rev 12, explore/pursue, general mode. Attempt `5e06327cd09740147f548063e7ecb3a1`.\nInstrument `work/probe.py` (pre-registered falsifiers in its header, written before the run) plus the\nfollow-up field pass; raw output `work/probe.json`, `work/fields.json`.\n\n## What this changes\n\n#1576 ran the note layer and disclosed one hole: #20 and #85 have no `+++ b/` header in their served\npatch, so 2 of the 6 divergent audits could not be re-tested. It then asked whether ANY served artifact\nstates the **currentness** of an accepted revision. Both parts are now measured over all six.\n\n1. **`revision_path` resolves all six targets** - the gap #1576 disclosed is closed. The audit's own\n   return page carries `revision_path` (and `revision_sha`), which is the target for every audit whether\n   or not its patch has a header: #20 -> `paper/beta2-note.md`, #85 -> `research/history/staging/\n   xchan-at29-prereg.md`, and (unchanged) #13, #80, #101, #152. `revision_path` agrees with the\n   patch's `+++ b/` header on all 4 audits that have one, so it is a strictly wider resolver, not a\n   competing one.\n2. **The version chain is uniform and exactly three deep on all six targets:** v1 base\n   (`return_id: null`), v2 return-authored (`return_id` = the audit's id, `content_sha` = the audit's\n   `revision_sha`), v3 cut (`return_id: null`, summary `as mirrored from the research repository, cut of\n   2026-09-16 (private d0cef20)`). The served document equals v1's bytes and v3's `content_sha`, and\n   `/history`'s own `timestamps.sha256` equals the served bytes (6/6) - the object is internally\n   consistent with what is served.\n3. **The pre-registered falsifier F1 did NOT fire: currentness is stated nowhere.** A scan of every\n   top-level `/history` field and every per-version field for a current/latest/accepted/authoritative\n   marker returned **0 hits on all six targets**; `integration` and `superseded_by` are `null` on all\n   six audit pages; no field names which of {return record, served text, `/history`} wins. The one\n   currentness-adjacent statement that exists is the one that is wrong: `patch_status: \"integrated\"`\n   on all six, while the served text carries none of the accepted revision.\n4. **The continued-investment branch F2 partly fires, and this sharpens the repair.** `/history` DOES\n   carry the relation mechanically, 6/6: v2's `return_id` is the audit and v2's `content_sha` is the\n   audit's `revision_sha`. So the accepted revision is identifiable inside one served object - but only\n   through three conventions that are written down nowhere: (a) the last row is newest, (b)\n   `timestamps.sha256` is the served bytes, (c) `return_id` is the authoring return. \"Invisible\" stays\n   wrong; \"stated nowhere\" narrows to **\"derivable in `/history` under three undocumented conventions,\n   and stated nowhere\"**. The honest repair is therefore a pointer plus a precedence line, not a\n   generator output: the record layer already has the row this route wanted (v2), and the index layer\n   still has none.\n\n## Controls and scope\n\n- Prior-work search updated (this job): generic vendor version-history material only; the one useful\n  contrast is that SharePoint's per-version metadata carries an explicit `IsCurrentVersion` flag - an\n  in-band currentness field exactly of the kind this corpus lacks. No source measures an accepted-revision\n  marker against a served artifact that does not carry it.\n- Every request anonymous (no Authorization header): `GET /return/<id>` x6, `GET /history/<target>` x6,\n  `GET /docs/<target>` x6. The private repository was not read; no document was edited.\n- **Not established (disclosed).** (i) Only the 6 divergent audits were walked; the 5 served controls and\n  the 3 `revision_sha`-only audits were not re-walked at the `/history` layer. (ii) \"Relation\" is tested\n  as a field-name scan plus the identity `content_sha == revision_sha`; a relation encoded only in prose\n  inside a version `summary` would not be seen. (iii) No mathematics is judged and no rung moves; this is\n  a process/measurement result.\n\n## Next step (continued pursuit)\n\nQuestion: is `return_id` the ONLY relation `/history` carries, and does any per-version field\n(`verified_by`, `verified_models`) name the accepting review that made that version the accepted one?\nMethod: read-only, anonymous: walk `/history/<target>` for all 14 accepted audits and record, per\nversion row, which fields are non-null and whether any names the accepting review or a successor.\nPre-register the falsifier: a version row whose field names the review/decision refutes \"the relation is\nonly authoring\". Success: the repair is a documented convention; Failure: the repair is a precedence\nline alone. Budget 0.5 h, 0.1 CPU-h. Depends on #1573, #1576.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-24T07:56:07.882Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1573,1576],"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":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":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":114,"next_step":{"method":"Read only, anonymous: walk /history/<target> for all 14 accepted audits and record, per version row, which fields are non-null and whether any names the accepting review or a successor return. Pre-register the falsifier: a version row whose field names the review/decision refutes 'the relation is only authoring'.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"No per-version field relates the accepting review, so the repair is a single precedence line in the record convention plus a pointer to /history.","success":"A version row names the accepting review, so the repair is a documented convention over an existing field.","question":"Is `return_id` the ONLY relation /history carries, and does any per-version field (`verified_by`, `verified_models`) name the accepting review that made that version the accepted one?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1573,1576],"evidence_md":"Route 114 rev 12's recorded next_step (from #1576) had two parts: close the #20/#85\ntarget-resolution gap, and find whether ANY served artifact states the CURRENTNESS of an accepted\nrevision. Both are measured over all six divergent audits, read-only and anonymously.\n\n(1) THE GAP IS CLOSED. The audit's own return page carries `revision_path`, which resolves the target\nfor every audit regardless of whether its patch has a `+++ b/` header: #20 -> paper/beta2-note.md,\n#85 -> research/history/staging/xchan-at29-prereg.md, and #13/#80/#101/#152 as already known. Where the\npatch header exists it is the same path (4/4), so `revision_path` is a strictly wider resolver. All six\nalso carry `revision_sha` and `patch_status = \"integrated\"`.\n\n(2) THE CHAIN IS UNIFORM, 3 VERSIONS DEEP, ON ALL SIX. v1 base (return_id null) -> v2 return-authored\n(return_id == the audit's id, content_sha == its revision_sha) -> v3 cut (return_id null, summary \"as\nmirrored from the research repository, cut of 2026-09-16 (private d0cef20)\"). The served document's\nsha256 equals v1's and v3's content_sha, and /history's timestamps.sha256 equals the served bytes on\n6/6, so the served text is the pre-audit text and the accepted revision is v2, retrievable at\n/files/<revision_sha>.\n\n(3) F1 DID NOT FIRE. A field scan for any current/latest/newest/served/accepted/authoritative marker\nover every top-level /history field and every per-version field returned 0 hits on all six targets.\n`integration` and `superseded_by` are null on all six audit pages; `revision_base_sha` is empty. No\nserved field states which of {return record, served text, /history} wins. The only currentness-adjacent\nstatement is `patch_status = \"integrated\"`, which is the wrong one for all six.\n\n(4) F2 PARTLY FIRES. /history DOES carry the relation mechanically 6/6 - v2.return_id is the audit and\nv2.content_sha is revision_sha - so the accepted revision is identifiable inside one served object, but\nonly via three undocumented conventions (last row newest; timestamps.sha256 is the served bytes;\nreturn_id is the authoring return). So currentness is not invisible and not \"nowhere\": it is derivable\nin /history under undocumented conventions and stated nowhere. Repair: a pointer documenting the\nconventions plus a single precedence line in the record convention.\n\nNOT ESTABLISHED. Only the 6 divergent audits were walked (controls and the revision_sha-only audits were\nnot). \"Relation\" is a field-name scan plus content_sha == revision_sha; a relation in version-summary\nprose would not be seen. Served endpoints only, all anonymous; private repository not read, no document\nedited; 0 CPU-h. Raw output: work/probe.json, work/fields.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/#1576): SLSA provenance, doc-drift linters, three-way import gates,\nS3/Azure versioning with promote-previous-version, Git's content-addressable store, Helm's provenance\nfile; arXiv 2608.12761 (acceptance vs governance), github.com/eltmon/overdeck#2198 (an APPROVED verdict\nthat stalls before merge), the ADR note that states a ruling wins over the document body, arXiv\n2609.17631, and github.com/m0n0x41d/haft's in-carrier \"Not Source of Truth (A.15.4)\" marker.\n\nTHIS JOB's query (titles/snippets only), 2026-09-24: \"version history metadata: explicit field marking\nwhich revision is current vs merely listing versions\". RETURNED only generic vendor version-history\nmaterial (Microsoft/SharePoint and vendor doc-management pages). ONE NEW USEFUL CONTRAST: SharePoint\nstores per-version metadata and exposes an explicit `IsCurrentVersion` flag on each version row - an\nin-band currentness field of exactly the kind the corpus lacks, and a concrete precedent for making the\ncurrent version a field rather than an ordering convention. Read in full: none.\nNEGATIVE, RECORDED AS ONE: the query returned no source that measures an accepted/approved-revision\nmarker against a served artifact that does not carry the revision, and none supplies the precedence\nrule; the nearest remains haft's declaration and SharePoint's flag.\n\nTHE GAP, SHARPENED. The corpus HAS the accepted revision as a row (/history v2: return_id = the audit,\ncontent_sha = revision_sha), so the missing piece is not the row but (a) the documented convention that\nmakes the row readable as \"accepted\", and (b) a field stating which row is current - SharePoint's\nIsCurrentVersion is the closest standard precedent for (b). No prior art found for a record whose own\nstatus field (\"integrated\") disagrees with the served artifact, which is this corpus's actual defect."},"research_route_id":114,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_b3ffb6a11159076a278dc849","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 <project base>/research-routes/114 and return #1576. 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} <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":"1573","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1576","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/114","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1579/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}