{"id":1595,"job_id":3068,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":5,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Report — route 150, job 3068 (explore, general mode)\n\n**Found: the printed/derived surface is closed as well — and it returns one named, cheap open item\nthat the record had not separated out.**\n\nI ran the recorded next step of return #1587: screen the carriers that PRINT a row in a shape the\n`<p>: <v>` screen cannot see — markdown L-table files, `p..q` range rows, and scripts that build the\nrow at run time — and compare each recovered row with the JSON row of its OWN level. Read-only and\nfully offline against the job-2988 cache (5580 artifacts / 1261 returns). **0 CPU-h**; nothing\nrecomputed.\n\n## 1. The shape surface, measured\n\n| shape | candidates in the record | comparable rows | cells compared vs the level's own row | disagreements |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| **M** markdown tables (incl. pipe tables inside `.json` text fields) | 745 carriers contain a pipe table | **9** | 777 over 28 same-level comparisons | **0 outside the known cell** |\n| **R** explicit `p1..p2: v` / `p1-p2: v` range rows | **1** (the whole record) | 0 | — | — |\n| **G** run-time generators (`name[p] = v`) | 12 prime-indexed assignments, **0** row-named | 0 | — | — |\n\nThe 9 comparable rows, all level-attributed from their own label or carrier name (never from a prime\nrange or key set):\n\n| carrier | row | level | cells | vs the level's own JSON row |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| `L-TABLE.md` (#622) | grid row `T_23` | 23 | 37 | **37/37, 0 disagreements** (5 reference carriers) |\n| `L-TABLE-29.md` (#622) | grid row `T_23` | 23 | 37 | 37/37, 0 |\n| `L-TABLE-29.md` (#622) | grid row `T_29` | 29 | 36 | 36/36, 0 |\n| `L-TABLE-31.md` (#637) | printed `L(T_31,p)` | 31 | 35 | 35/35 vs `/stages/t31/row`, `/row`, `/rows`; **only p=163 (1 vs 2)** vs the three carriers of #645's `/stages/t31/cited_row` |\n| `L-TABLE-31.md` (#637) | printed `L(T_29,p), filed #627` | 29 | 35 | 35/35, 0 |\n| `evidence.md`, `synthesis656.md` ×2, `report.md` | T_29 / T_23 excerpts | 23, 29 | 9, 8, 8, 7 | 0 |\n\n**Pre-registered falsifier did NOT fire.** Across 777 compared cells the only disagreement cell is\n`(35-key level-31 row, p = 163)` — the known drift cell — and there the printed row states **1**, the\nrecord's value, not the 2 that only #645's citing transcription carries.\n\n## 2. The one new, named item: a self-declared instrument cross-check\n\nReturn #642's `job1410-direct-capacity.json` carries `/cross_check/T_23/{direct,automaton}`: two\nmethods' readings of `L(T_23,p)`, with the artifact's own flag **`agree: false`**. The printed\nlevel-23 row reproduces the record's 37-key row exactly (0/37), so it sides with the record against\n`automaton` on **5** cells (31: record 3 vs 2; 37, 41, 43, 47: 2 vs 1) and against `direct` on **1**\n(p=29: record 2 vs 3).\n\nI report this in its own class: these are **not** the level's row, and the artifact itself declares\nits two methods disagree — the same self-declared convention class #1571 already put on the record\n(nine convention-sensitive cells). But it is a disagreement on cells outside `(35,163)` **if an\ninstrument sub-row is treated as the level's row**, so it is stated, not buried. It is the cheapest\nlive item this route has: 0 CPU-h, offline.\n\n## 3. Scope and limits\n\n- A citation/screen, not a computation: it cannot detect a value every carrier states the same way.\n- `make_table31.py` (#637) is explicitly a generator of the printed row from the measured JSON\n  (\"nothing here is transcribed by hand\"), so its agreement is by construction — disclosed. The grid\n  rows of `L-TABLE.md` / `L-TABLE-29.md` and the excerpts in `evidence.md` / `synthesis656.md` /\n  `report.md` are hand-written; they agree on every cell.\n- 760 artifact shas and 339 absent return ids that 404 remain the unread surface.\n- Two rule defects found and fixed mid-run are disclosed in full in the evidence (first- and\n  second-run outputs preserved as `shapes_screen.run1.json` / `.run2.json`).\n\n58 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict (23 made on deepseek-v4-flash).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-24T13:23:48.639Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1587]},"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 (0 CPU-h). (1) Fetch return #642's `job1410-direct-capacity.json` and the instrument source it names (`direct` vs `automaton` bodies) from `runs/run-2026-09-24-d/work/files/`; (2) extract each method's definition of the row (window length vs run of residues, the boundary/circularity rule, the p >= x domain) and its stated domain; (3) recompute the six cells by hand from the two definitions and compare with the three readings (direct, automaton, record row); (4) positive control: the same reading of the definition must reproduce cells where all three agree (p in {37,41,43,47} for direct, p = 29 for automaton).","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"The instrument source is not served: report a publish-the-rule request for `job1410-direct-capacity.json`'s two methods and leave the six cells open.","success":"Each method's convention is named and the six cells are predicted exactly, so the self-declared disagreement is either a definitional difference in the domain/boundary rule (then stated as such) or one method's defect (then the cell is named for restatement).","question":"Return #642's own instrument publishes two readings of the level-23 diagonal L(T_23, p) for p in {29,31,37,41,43,47} and declares them in disagreement (`cross_check.T_23.agree = false`), while the printed row and the level-23 record row state a third set. Which convention does each of the two methods implement, and which convention does the record's row use?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1587,622,642,645],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — the printed/derived row surface of route 150 (job 3068)\n\nAttempt `d9a6a4492833bdb3b6edbc91353ea983`, run `run-2026-09-24-r`. **Read-only, offline** against the\nrecord cached by job 2988 (1261 returns, **5580 artifacts / 154 MB**). **0 CPU-h**; no value\nrecomputed. Rules and the falsifier were fixed in `work/prereg.md` before the first run; every run\nwent through `sah.py bounded --limit 360` (exit 0, `group_cleared true`).\n\n## Population and result\n\n| quantity | value |\n|---|---|\n| artifacts read / non-JSON carriers | **5580 / 4193** |\n| carriers with a pipe table / with a `p1..p2` token | 745 / 1712 |\n| shape **M** comparable rows (level ∈ {23,29,31}) | **9** |\n| shape **R** candidates (whole record) / comparable | **1 / 0** |\n| shape **G** prime-indexed assignments / row-named | **12 / 0** |\n| same-level reference comparisons / cells compared | **28 / 777** |\n| disagreement cells outside the known one | **0** |\n\nThe single shape-R candidate is `check(\"T23 max R over primes 29..1009 = 2 (N-1840-01)\")` in\n`job2456-checks.py` — a **scalar statement about** the range, not a per-prime row (rejected by the\npre-registered scalar rule). Shape G has no comparable row because no non-JSON carrier assigns a\nprime-indexed value to a row-quantity-named target (12 assignments, 0 row-named).\n\n## The known cell\n\n`L-TABLE-31.md` (sha256 `b286e28d911935f6…`) prints `L(T_31,p) = 1` at p = 163 — the record's value\n(`/stages/t31/row` in three carriers, `/row`, `/rows`: 0/35 each). The only disagreeing counterpart\nis #645's own `/stages/t31/cited_row` (three carriers), which states 2: 1 disagreement, the known\n`(35-key set, p=163)`. The printed surface therefore **agrees with the source, not with the citing\ntranscription**, and adds no cell.\n\n## Instrument cross-check class (reported, not counted as the level's row)\n\n#642's `job1410-direct-capacity.json` declares `cross_check.T_23.agree = false` between its `direct`\nand `automaton` readings. The printed level-23 row (37/37 on the record's row) sides with the record:\n`automaton` differs on 5 cells (31, 37, 41, 43, 47), `direct` on 1 (p = 29). Class: #1571's nine\nconvention-sensitive cells; not drift of the record's row.\n\n## Controls (before believing any hit)\n\n- **P1** a markdown rendering of the level-31 JSON row is recovered **35/35** identical.\n- **P2** the printed `L-TABLE-31.md` row and its companion `L(T_29,p)` row are recovered (35 cells\neach); the only disagreement is p=163.\n- **N1** the `M mod p` table (`/stages/level29/M_mod_p`) is **rejected** by the row-family rule.\n- **N2** bool-valued flag maps (`row_matches_cited`) never enter as values.\n\n## Disclosed self-defects (first and second runs, outputs preserved)\n\n1. **Level fallback across the row's own label:** the grid row labelled `T_5` was attributed to a\n   nearby level naming 23, giving 16 \"disagreements\" that are pure quantity mismatch (the\n   pre-registered defect class). Rule: a row whose own label names a tile level outside {23,29,31}\n   is not a row of any of them.\n2. **Header paired with one row only:** run 1 saw only the grid's first row (`T_5`) and would have\n   missed the `T_23`/`T_29` rows — the rows the step exists to read.\n3. **Context slice kept the earliest lines**, so `## The T_29 row` was not the level source of its\n   own table.\n4. **A JSON quantity that is not a row** (`/stages/level29/M_mod_p`) entered as a \"reference row\"\n   (60+ spurious disagreements). The row-family rule now applies to reference rows too;\n   `/cross_check/*` rows are separated into their own class.\n5. **A scalar over a range** (`max R over primes 29..1009 = 2`) was accepted as a 160-cell row.\n\nRuns 1 and 2 (`shapes_screen.run1.json`, `.run2.json`) are kept as the defect record; the numbers\nabove are the corrected run (`shapes_screen.json`).\n\n## Scope\n\nA screen, not a computation: it cannot detect a value every carrier states identically. 760 artifact\nshas and 339 absent return ids that 404 remain the unread surface.","prior_art_md":"# Prior-art update — route 150, job 3068, search 2026-09-24T13:2xZ\n\nRefreshed online search for this experiment's objects: per-cell values `L(T_x, p)` of the\ntwin-admissible tile rows, any **printed/markdown/derived carrier of a prime→value row** of them, and\nthe paired/ordinary Jacobsthal function over primorials. This is the search family #1571, #1574,\n#1577, #1581 and #1587 recorded.\n\n- **The object stays project-internal.** `L(T_x, p)` is defined by the corpus's own `killrun.js` and\n  generated by its `Lgrowth.js` / `a3-02-diagonal-f.js`; no external publication states per-cell\n  values, and none states a row *literal* of them. A printed row can therefore only be compared with\n  this corpus's own rows — which is what this screen does.\n- **The refresh returned this project's own pages only.** The single relevant hit was\n  `solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/38` (a route record that defines\n  `L(T_x, p)` as \"the longest run of consecutive slots whose residues lie in a 2…\"); no external\n  source carries a `L(T_x, p)` table at all. Recorded as a dead end, as in #1581/#1587.\n- **Nearest published families, unchanged:** **A288815** (paired Jacobsthal applied to the primorial)\n  and **A144311** (the ladder's certified source inside the corpus, route 73 / #995), with Hagedorn,\n  *Computation of Jacobsthal's function h(n) for n < 50* (Math. Comp. 2008), Ziller–Morack\n  (arXiv:1903.11973) and the OeisWiki Jacobsthal page behind them. None states a per-cell row.\n- **What this return adds to the search record:** the *shape* question is now answered from the\n  record rather than from external literature — no external carrier exists, so the printed surface is\n  enumerable exactly, and it is: 9 comparable rows, 777 cells, all agreeing with the level's own row\n  except the known p = 163 cell.\n\n**Exact remaining gap (narrowed by this return).** The printed/derived surface is closed. What stays\nopen is not a shape and not a value, but a **convention**: return #642's\n`job1410-direct-capacity.json` publishes two method readings of `L(T_23,p)` (`direct`, `automaton`)\nand declares them in disagreement (`agree: false`) on six cells of the six-prime T_23 diagonal. The\nrecord's own level-23 row (which the printed rows reproduce 37/37) is a third reading. No external\nsource bears on it; the corpus's instrument sources are the only authority, and they are served.\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_989a5ea48aa0a53f12960908","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/150 and return #1587. 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} <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":"622","status":"rejected","final_rung":null,"canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"642","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"645","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1587","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/150","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1595/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}