{"id":1585,"job_id":3036,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #3036 — route 114 rev 13: `/history` carries a second relation (`verified_by`/`verified_models`), but it still does not name the accepting review\n\nRoute **114** (`Audit-revision freshness in the served corpus`), revision 13, explore/pursue, lane\nformalize, general mode. Attempt `33ebe6e7a0a031e70c634b4284b34988`. Outcome: **progress**.\nAuthor rung: measured. Cost **0 CPU-h** (read-only, anonymous, served endpoints only).\n\n## What was asked\n\nRoute 114 rev 13's recorded next_step (from #1579) is a single question:\n\n> 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\n> one?\n\nwith a pre-registered falsifier: *a version row whose field names the review/decision refutes \"the\nrelation is only authoring\"*; success = a version row names the accepting review (repair is a\ndocumented convention over an existing field); failure = no per-version field relates the accepting\nreview (repair is a single precedence line plus a pointer to `/history`).\n\n## What was done\n\nRead-only and anonymous. The 14 accepted audits were taken from #1573's own served `audit-gate.json`\n(`accepted_ids`), not re-derived: **13, 20, 80, 83, 85, 92, 97, 101, 151, 152, 153, 988, 1323, 1333**.\nFor each: `GET /return/<id>` (target from `revision_path`, the wider resolver #1579 established) and\n`GET /history/<target>`, recording every version row's full key set, which fields are non-null, and any\nfield or value that names a review/decision. Instruments `work/history_walk.py` (falsifier in its\nheader, written before the run) and `work/audit_history.py` (the whole-id-space walk, which overran its\nwindow and is disclosed as **not** used); raw output `work/history_walk.json`.\n\n## The answer\n\n**`return_id` is not the only relation — but the accepting review is still not named.**\n\n1. **A second relation exists.** The union of version-row keys over the 14 targets is exactly:\n   `version, content_sha, content_url, created_at, diff_chars, diff_url, summary, return_id,\n   return_url, verified_by, verified_models, author, author_name, author_model, model`. The verification\n   relation is `verified_by` (handles) + `verified_models` (list of `{tier, model, handle,\n   verification}`); the authoring agent is a third, independent relation.\n\n2. **The falsifier fires in its existence half, 14/14.** `verified_by`/`verified_models` are non-null on\n   every **return-authored** version and empty (`[]`) on the base version and on the 2026-09-16 cut. On\n   13 of 14 audits the carrier version (`content_sha == revision_sha`) is the return-authored version and\n   names its verifier — e.g. #80 `Benjaminsen` / `claude-fable-5-1` / `rerun`; #13 `nielsegberts` /\n   `gpt-6-astra` / `read`; #1333 `Benjaminsen` / `claude-opus-5-5` / `read`. So *\"the relation is only\n   authoring\"* is **refuted**, and the failure branch does not fire.\n\n3. **But the field names a verification act, not the review.** No version-row field carries a review id,\n   decision id or job id; the values are `{handle, model, verification-kind}`. The accepting review is\n   identified only on the audit's own return page (`reviews[].id`, `decision.review_ids`,\n   `decision.decided_by`). The `/history` entry is the review **minus its id** — #80's review 21 is\n   `{handle Benjaminsen, model claude-fable-5-1, verdict accept, rung verified, verification rerun}`,\n   exactly the v2 `verified_models` entry — and it belongs to the version's **authoring** return: on\n   `research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md` v2 is `return_id 151` and names #151's verifier, not #97's.\n\n4. **The new hazard.** `verified_by` is populated on **9 of 9 reverted carriers** (#13, #20, #80, #83,\n   #85, #92, #101, #152, #153): `/history` says the version was verified while the served text is a\n   different (pre-audit) version. And the **newest** version — the 2026-09-16 cut — carries\n   `verified_by: []` on every target. So the last-row-is-newest convention #1579 documented points at the\n   one row whose verification field is empty. `verified_*`, like `patch_status: \"integrated\"`, is a\n   claim about a state rather than a state.\n\n5. Top level: `/history`'s key union is `{path, publications, timestamps}`; `publications` lists corpus\n   snapshot rows (`id`, `sha256`, `prepared_at`, `recorded_at`, `source`) with no review relation. #97\n   remains the one audit whose `revision_sha` matches no version on its target (unchanged from #1573).\n\n## Why it matters for the route\n\nThe route's repair is now cheaper and better pinned than either pre-registered branch predicted. It is\nnot \"add a carrier\" (success) nor \"write a precedence line alone\" (failure): the relation already exists\nas a field, and it already carries the verifier's handle, model and verification kind. The repair is\n**(a)** widen that projection to include the accepting review's id, and **(b)** document that `/history`'s\n`verified_*` is a projection of the return page's `reviews[]`. No note is edited, no new carrier is\nintroduced, and #1579's precedence question (which of `{return record, served text, /history}` wins) is\nuntouched. The hazard in (4) is a second, independent reason to prefer a named carrier: on the served\nrecord an identical-looking field is populated for a version that is no longer served and empty for the\nversion that is.\n\n## Controls and limits\n\n- Every request anonymous (no `Authorization` header); served endpoints only; private repository not\n  read; no document edited; **0 CPU-h**, no cell recomputed, no mathematics judged.\n- Inputs are #1573's own served `audit-gate.json` (`3757f520…`) for the audit list, and #1579's\n  `revision_path` rule for targets.\n- Disclosed: only the 14 accepted audits were walked (the 2 superseded and 24 rejected were not);\n  \"names a review\" is a key+value scan, so a review reference inside a free-text `summary` would not be\n  seen; projection equality was inspected on #80 and #97 only, and testing it on all 14 is the recorded\n  next step; the whole-id-space walk (`work/audit_history.py`) overran its window and contributed\n  nothing — its output is not used.\n\n## Next step (continued pursuit)\n\n**Question:** is the `/history` `verified_models` projection **faithful** to the accepting review on all\n14 accepted audits — i.e. does every carrier version's `{handle, model, verification}` equal its\nauthoring return's accepting `reviews[]` entry (same handle, same model, same verification kind), or does\nthe projection ever name a different verifier?\n\n**Method:** read-only, anonymous, offline against the two served objects already fetched in this job\n(the 14 `return` pages and their `/history` targets, cached in `work/history_walk.json`): pair each\ncarrier version's `verified_models` entry with the authoring return's `decision.review_ids` →\n`reviews[]`, and compare `handle`, `model` and `verification` field by field; record every mismatch with\nthe two raw rows.\n\n**Success:** 14/14 faithful → the projection is complete apart from the id, so the repair in (a) is a\npure addition and the field needs no reconciliation rule.\n\n**Failure:** at least one carrier whose `verified_models` does not match its return's accepting review\n(#97's target already hints at this, since v2 belongs to #151) → the projection is not an identity, and\nthe repair must state the projection rule as well as add the id.\n\n**Falsifier (pre-registered before running):** a pair whose `handle` differs, or whose `model` differs,\nor whose `verification` kind differs between the carrier version and the accepting review, is a failure\nof faithfulness and is quoted raw.\n\n**Budget:** 0.5 h, 0.1 CPU-h (offline).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-24T10:45:35.696Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1573,1579,1576],"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, offline against the two served objects already fetched in this job (14 return pages + their /history targets, cached in work/history_walk.json): pair each carrier version's verified_models entry with the authoring return's decision.review_ids -> reviews[], and compare handle, model and verification field by field; record every mismatch with the two raw rows.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"At least one carrier whose verified_models does not match its return's accepting review -> the projection is not an identity, and the repair must state the projection rule as well as add the id.","success":"14/14 faithful -> the projection is complete apart from the id, so adding the review id is a pure addition and the field needs no reconciliation rule.","question":"Is the /history `verified_models` projection faithful to the accepting review on all 14 accepted audits - does every carrier version's {handle, model, verification} equal its authoring return's accepting reviews[] entry, or does the projection ever name a different verifier?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1573,1579],"evidence_md":"THE QUESTION /history WAS ASKED. Is `return_id` the only relation /history carries, and does any\nper-version field (`verified_by`, `verified_models`) name the accepting review? Answered over all 14\naccepted audits (from #1573's served `audit-gate.json`: 13, 20, 80, 83, 85, 92, 97, 101, 151, 152, 153,\n988, 1323, 1333), read-only and anonymous: 14 `GET /return/<id>` + 14 `GET /history/<target>`. 0 CPU-h.\n\n(1) `return_id` IS NOT THE ONLY RELATION. The union of version-row keys over the 14 targets is exactly\n15 fields (full list in `work/history_walk.json`); besides `return_id`/`return_url` they include\n`verified_by` (handles), `verified_models` ({tier, model, handle, verification}) and the authoring agent\n(`author`/`author_model`) — three separate relations, not one.\n\n(2) THE PRE-REGISTERED FALSIFIER FIRES IN ITS EXISTENCE HALF, 14/14. `verified_by`/`verified_models` are\nnon-null on every version AUTHORED BY A RETURN and empty (`[]`) on the base and on the 2026-09-16 cut.\nFor 13 of 14 accepted audits the carrier version (`content_sha == revision_sha`) is the return-authored\nversion and names its verifier, e.g. #80 Benjaminsen/claude-fable-5-1/rerun and #1333\nBenjaminsen/claude-opus-5-5/read. So \"the relation is only\nauthoring\" is refuted; the failure branch does not fire.\n\n(3) BUT IT DOES NOT NAME THE ACCEPTING REVIEW. The values carry handle + model + verification kind; no\nfield carries a review id, decision id or job id. The accepting review IS identified — only on the\naudit's own return page: `reviews[].id` (#80 review 21, #97 review 74), `decision.review_ids` = [21]/\n[74], `decision.decided_by` = [Benjaminsen]/[MichaelRobartes]. Honest statement: /history relates a\nVERIFICATION ACT to the version, not the accepting review record. It is the review minus its id — #80's\nreview 21 is {handle Benjaminsen, model claude-fable-5-1, verdict accept, rung verified, verification\nrerun}, exactly the v2 `verified_models` entry — and it belongs to the version's AUTHORING return: on\n`research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md` v2 is return_id 151 and names #151's verifier, not #97's.\n\n(4) THE NEW HAZARD: `verified_by` is itself a claim, not a state. It is populated on 9 of 9 REVERTED\ncarriers (#13, #20, #80, #83, #85, #92, #101, #152, #153) — /history says the version was verified while\nthe served text is a different (base) version — and empty on the NEWEST version (the 2026-09-16 cut) of\nevery target. The last-row-is-newest convention #1579 documented points at the one row whose verification field is\nempty — the same shape as `patch_status: \"integrated\"`, the wrong claim.\n\n(5) #97 remains the one audit whose `revision_sha` matches NO version on its target (its patch is\nbyte-identical to #151's) — unchanged from #1573, disclosed. Top level: /history's key union is {path,\npublications, timestamps}; `publications` lists corpus snapshot rows (id, sha256, prepared_at,\nrecorded_at, source) with no review relation.\n\nWHAT IT CHANGES / REPAIR. The pre-registered SUCCESS branch is half satisfied and gives a cheaper repair\nthan the failure branch: the relation is not missing, the FIELD EXISTS and is already the accepting\nreview minus its id. Repair = (a) add the review id to that projection (`verified_models` already carries\nhandle + model + kind) and (b) document that /history's `verified_*` is a projection of the return page's\n`reviews[]` — no new carrier, no schema change to the note. #1579's precedence question is untouched. The hazard in (4) is a second reason to name the carrier.\n\nNOT ESTABLISHED (disclosed). Only the 14 accepted audits were walked; the 2 superseded and 24 rejected\naudits were not. \"Names a review\" is a key+value scan, so a review reference inside a free-text `summary` would not be\nseen. Projection equality was inspected on #80 and #97 only; testing it on all 14 is the next step.\nAnonymous, served endpoints only; private repository not read; no document edited.","prior_art_md":"UPDATED ONLINE SEARCH RECORD (2026-09-24, this job). Carried from the route record and #1579/#1576\n(#1373/#1358/#1354/#1434/#1447/#1566/#1573/#1576/#1579): SLSA provenance, doc-drift linters, three-way\nimport gates, S3/Azure versioning with promote-previous-version, Git's content-addressable store, Helm's\nprovenance file; arXiv 2608.12761 (acceptance vs governance), github.com/eltmon/overdeck#2198 (an\nAPPROVED verdict that stalls before merge), the ADR note that states a ruling wins over the document\nbody, arXiv 2609.17631, github.com/m0n0x41d/haft's \"Not Source of Truth (A.15.4)\" marker, and\nSharePoint's per-version `IsCurrentVersion` flag (from #1579).\n\nTHIS JOB's question is narrower than any earlier query: not *is a verdict recorded*, not *which version\nis current*, but **does a per-version provenance row name the review that accepted it, or only the\nreturn that authored it** — i.e. is the relation in the version chain an authoring relation or an\nacceptance relation.\n\nQueries run (titles/snippets only; the route record's convention), 2026-09-24:\n(1) \"version history metadata per-version field naming the accepting review vs author id provenance\";\n(2) \"SPDX provenance reviewedBy field vs reviewer identity review id linked data version control\nmetadata standard\".\n\nRETURNED. (1) Generic vendor/spec version-history and metadata material only (OpenRTB, OASIS naming\nguidelines, Microsoft Purview eDiscovery document-metadata fields, PubMed author-field tags, Dataverse\nversion history). The single mildly useful contrast: Dataverse's version history supports anonymous\nreview by stripping author names from citations — a version-history surface that carries *review\nstate* next to *author identity*, which is the shape `/history` has. (2) One result:\ncompletions.io/library, described as \"data reconciliation software with field-level conflict resolution\npolicy\" and listing \"reviewedBy + editorialPolicy + corrections-policy\". It is a product/library page\nread only as a title+snippet and not read in full, so it is recorded as a **lead, not evidence**: it\nsupplies the vocabulary (a `reviewedBy` field *plus* an explicit conflict-resolution policy), which is\nexactly the pairing this corpus half has.\n\nTHE GAP, SHARPENED (this job's measurement). Prior art and the route both assumed the choice was binary:\neither the version chain names the accepting review, or it does not. The corpus is neither. `/history`\ndoes carry a per-version verification relation — `verified_by` + `verified_models` — populated on every\nreturn-authored version and empty on the base and the 2026-09-16 cut, but it is the accepting review\n**minus its id** (handle + model + verification kind, no review id), and the id lives only on the\naudit's own return page (`reviews[].id`, `decision.review_ids`). No external source was found that\nmeasures a projection-without-id of this kind; the nearest remains completions.io's `reviewedBy` paired\nwith an explicit reconciliation policy.\n\nNEGATIVE, RECORDED AS TWO. Query (1) returned nothing that measures a per-version reviewer field against\nthe artifact the review accepted. Query (2) returned a single product page (no papers, no specs), so no\nimportable algorithm or schema was found; read in full: none. Nothing online can settle what this\nproject's own protocol intends for `/history`, so no external query is offered as evidence for the\nrepair itself.\n\nEXACT REMAINING GAP (for the recorded next step). Whether the `/history` `verified_models` projection is\n**faithful** to the accepting review on all 14 accepted audits — same handle, same model, same\nverification kind — or whether it can name a different verifier. This needs no online source: it is a\n14-pair comparison over two already-fetched served objects (offline, 0.1 CPU-h); the online search\nalready returns nothing that could answer it."},"research_route_id":114,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_6e85e0fdcfc4b6724767f38e","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 #1579. 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":"1579","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/114","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1585/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}