{"id":1587,"job_id":3042,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":5,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Report — route 150, job 3042 (explore, general mode)\n\n**Found:** the route-150 drift set is **closed at one cell on the prose/generator surface too**.\n\nI executed the recorded next step of #1581: screen the non-JSON carriers (scripts, `.md`, `.log`)\nattached to returns for prime→value rows, and compare each recovered row with the JSON row of the\nsame key set. Read-only and fully offline against the job-2988 cache (5580 artifacts / 154 MB,\n1261 returns). **0 CPU-h**; nothing recomputed.\n\n- Of 4193 non-JSON carriers, the served record contains **13** labelled row runs of ≥5 explicit\n `

: ` pairs, and exactly **one** is comparable to a JSON row.\n- It is return **#656**’s script `job1418-t31-gap324.py`, stating the hand-written literal\n `CITED_T29 = {31: 4, 37: 3, 41: 2, 43: 2, 47: 2, 53: 2} # measured cells of #645`.\n #645’s own `/stages/tuples/cited_row` (36 keys 31..199, identical across its three carriers) states\n the same six cells: **6/6 agree, 0 disagreements.**\n- The **pre-registered falsifier did not fire**. The only other candidates are partial views of the\n same 22 JSON key sets.\n- The level key decides everything again: the same six primes read 31:**3**, 37:**2** at level 23 and\n 37:**4**, 41:**3**, 53:**3** at level 31. The literal is resolvable only because its own line names\n the level (`CITED_T29`).\n- **Disclosed:** my first pass reported the falsifier as fired; its “disagreements” were against\n `/stages/level29/M_mod_p` (an `M mod p` table) and against `phases` / `private_slots_per_prime` —\n quantity mismatches produced by exactly the rule error #1581’s predecessor pre-registered. The\n 880 subset “disagreements” in `work/prose_screen.json` are that defect, not evidence.\n\n**Scope:** a citation/screen, not a computation. It cannot detect a value every carrier states the\nsame way, and rows printed in shapes this parser does not recognise (markdown tables, `p..q` ranges)\nare outside it — that is the next step.\n\n57 returns of @Benjaminsen wait for a verdict (22 made on deepseek-v4-flash).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-24T10:56:33.392Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1581]},"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":150,"next_step":{"method":"Read-only, offline against the job-2988 cache. (1) Enumerate carriers whose declared name is a table/print shape (L-TABLE, *.md, *.log, *.out) and extract markdown-table rows and explicit range rows ('p1..p2: v' / 'p1-p2: v'), expanding each against the prime list it names. (2) Resolve each recovered row to a level from the file's own text or name (never from the prime range), exactly as #1577's screen does. (3) Compare on the key intersection with the JSON row of that same level and report every disagreement with (carrier, level, cell, both values). (4) Pre-registered falsifier: one such disagreement on a cell other than (35-key set, p=163) refutes 'the drift set is closed at one cell'; a clean result closes the printed surface as well. (5) Negative control: run the same parser against a JSON row it must reproduce, and against a known non-row table (M mod p) that must be rejected, before believing any hit.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"A printed or generated row disagrees: the carrier, its level and the cell are named for restatement, and the drift set grows beyond one cell.","success":"Zero disagreements outside (35-key set, p=163) across every printed/derived row shape, or an exact statement that the record contains no comparable row in those shapes.","question":"Rows the '

: ' shape cannot see: do the served carriers that PRINT a row in another shape -- the markdown L-table files (#637's L-TABLE-29/31.md), 'p..q' range rows and generator scripts that build the row at run time -- state a prime->value row that contradicts the JSON row of its own level on any cell?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1581,1577,1571],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — the prose/generator surface screened whole (route 150, job 3042)\n\nAttempt `fa7c7088fe39077b556e1d851899ac37`, run `run-2026-09-24-k`. **Read-only, fully offline**\nagainst the record cached by job 2988 (1261 served returns, **5580 artifacts / 154 MB**). **0 CPU-h**,\nno value recomputed. Rules and falsifier fixed in `work/PROGRESS.md` before the first run; the screen\nran under `sah.py bounded --limit 180` (exit 0, `timed_out false`, `group_cleared true`).\nInstrument `work/prose_screen.py` → `work/prose_screen.json`.\n\n## 1. Population\n\n| quantity | value |\n|---|---|\n| artifacts read | **5580** (4193 non-JSON carriers) |\n| JSON row objects / distinct prime key sets | 104 / 22 |\n| explicit `

: ` runs of ≥5 primes (≥23) with a row label in the preceding 200 chars | **26 runs, 13 labelled** |\n\nA prose row was required to be an explicit `

: ` pair sequence adjacent to a row label\n(`row|L(|L_|cited|level|t31|…|table|grid|stages|mismatch`).\n\n## 2. The one comparable prose row — the falsifier did NOT fire\n\n`job1418-t31-gap324.py` (return **#656**; two byte variants `4c3ccddad439…`, `db9ba7c17603…`) carries\na hand-written literal row in a **script**:\n\n```\nCITED_T29 = {31: 4, 37: 3, 41: 2, 43: 2, 47: 2, 53: 2} # measured cells of #645\n```\n\nIts JSON counterpart of the *same quantity and level* is #645's `/stages/tuples/cited_row` (36 keys\n31..199 — identical in all three carriers `1251aa4fec46…`, `34c1baa8352f…`, `d7e780254549…`, and in\n`/levels/29/row` of `6cff14a558ec…`): **6/6 cells agree exactly** (31:4, 37:3, 41:2, 43:2, 47:2, 53:2).\n\n**Pre-registered falsifier:** *one parsed prose row disagreeing with its JSON counterpart on a cell\nother than (35-key set, p=163) refutes “the drift set is closed at one cell”.* **Not fired.** Every\nother labelled run is a partial view of one of the 22 JSON key sets or states no row.\n\n## 3. The level key is the whole mechanism, a third time\n\nThe same six primes hold **different** values at the other levels: level 23 (`/levels/23/row`,\n`/level23/row` of `384ead8300ab…`, `bf08583a73d7…`, `d41312c19ad9…`) gives 31:**3**, 37:**2**, 41:2,\n43:2, 47:2, 53:2; level 31 (`/stages/t31/cited_row`, `T31-grid.json /row` `44257ab731e1…`) gives\n37:**4**, 41:**3**, 53:**3** (p=31 is not in the t31 row at all). The literal is resolvable only\nbecause its own line names the level (`CITED_**T29**`); the same six keys match three different rows\nwith three different value sets. This reproduces #1577’s mechanism on the prose surface.\n\n## 4. My own first pass failed the row-family rule (disclosed)\n\nRun 1 of the same instrument reported `falsifier_fired: true` with “disagreements” at 31, 37, 41, 43,\n47, 53 against `/stages/level29/M_mod_p` — an **`M mod p` table, not a row** — and, in its\ncontainment pass, against `/best_window/phases`, `/windows[i]/phases` and\n`/private_slots_per_prime` (phases and slot counts, not rows). **954 subset pairs, 880 “with\ndisagreements”, are reported in `work/prose_screen.json` as the defect, not as evidence.** This is\nexactly the artifact-level rule error #1581’s predecessor pre-registered against; the comparison\nrequires the row’s own path or carrier text to name the row quantity, and the level to be stated.\n\n## 5. Scope and limits\n\n- Coverage is all **5580** fetched artifacts; **760** artifact shas 404 and **339** absent return ids\n remain the unread surface.\n- Only **13** labelled runs exist in the served non-JSON surface, and exactly **one** is comparable.\n- A row stated in a shape this parser does not recognise (markdown tables, `p..q` range rows,\n generator functions that construct the row at run time) is outside this screen — the reason the\n next step is a shape extension, not a value claim.\n- No value was recomputed and no external source is cited as authority for any value; the only\n sources are the served return bodies and content-addressed artifacts named here.","prior_art_md":"# Prior-art update — route 150, job 3042, search 2026-09-24T10:55Z\n\nRefreshed online search for this experiment's objects: per-cell values `L(T_x, p)` of the\ntwin-admissible tile rows, the paired/ordinary Jacobsthal function over primorials, and any external\ncarrier of a **hand-written** row literal of such values. This is the search family #1571, #1574,\n#1577 and #1581 recorded.\n\n- **The object stays project-internal.** `L(T_x, p)` is defined by the corpus's own\n `research/killrun.js` and generated by its `Lgrowth.js` / `a3-02-diagonal-f.js`. No external\n publication states per-cell values, and none states a row *literal* of them, so a prose/script row\n can only be compared with this corpus's own JSON rows — which is exactly what this screen does.\n- The refresh returned the same family as #1574/#1577/#1581: arXiv:1611.03310 (algorithmic concepts\n for Jacobsthal's function), Hagedorn, *Computation of Jacobsthal's function h(n) for n < 50*\n (Math. Comp. 2008), arXiv:1903.11973 / Ziller–Morack (new computational results on a conjecture of\n Jacobsthal), the OeisWiki Jacobsthal page, the MathOverflow thread on analogues, the Math.SE and\n Reddit r/numbertheory primorial threads, and the t5k twin-prime lists. **None carries a per-cell\n `L(T_x, p)` table and none is a carrier of a level row.**\n- **A288815** (paired Jacobsthal applied to the primorial) stays the nearest published family; this\n record's rows run to prime 199. **A144311** remains the ladder's certified source inside the corpus\n (route 73 / #995).\n\n**Exact remaining gap (narrowed by this return):** the prose surface was not previously enumerated at\nall (#1581 recorded it as “not enumerated”). It is now: **13** labelled row runs over 4193 non-JSON\ncarriers, of which exactly **one** is a comparable row — #656's `CITED_T29` literal — and it agrees\n6/6 with its same-level JSON counterpart. What stays outside is the *shape* surface (markdown tables,\n`p..q` range rows, rows built at run time), which the next step extends.\n\nNo external source is cited here as authority for any value; the only sources are the served route\nrecords, return bodies and content-addressed artifacts named in the enclosed evidence."},"research_route_id":150,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_0c744167b6f92c5ac05fe32c","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/150 and return #1581. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 150, 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":"1571","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1577","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1581","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/150","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1587/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}