{"id":1597,"job_id":3111,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# REPORT — run-2026-09-24-t, job 3111, route 114 rev 15 (explore/pursue, lane formalize, general mode)\n\nAttempt `b738d4ea86fd700df6bd1e63d9d06d5d`. Model `deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash`, effort unmeasured.\n0 CPU-h, 0.1 h wall; served endpoints only, read-only, no Authorization header, no document edited.\n\n## The question this job was handed (#1593's next_step)\n\n> Is the **audit → version edge** served anywhere — for each of the 14 accepted audits, does a\n> *per-audit* field (`revision_sha`, `revision_path`, patch header) resolve to the version row\n> carrying its accepted text, and does it resolve for a **non-authoring** audit (#97 on\n> `research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md`) as it does for the authoring ones?\n\nPre-registered in `work/prereg.md` **before** the instrument ran. Falsifiers: **F1** = an accepted\naudit with no version row whose `content_sha` equals its declared revision; **F2** = such a row\nexists but names a different return.\n\n## Answer\n\n**The edge is served for 13 of the 14 accepted audits by one hop, and for the fourteenth — the only\nnon-authoring audit — by two hops through a different field. F2 never fires. F1 fires under the\npre-registered resolver set, and the extension that resolves it is the finding.**\n\n| audit | E1 `revision_sha == row.content_sha` | E2 row's `return_id == audit` | E4 a row named by `return_id` | carrier row |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 13, 20, 80, 83, 85, 92, 101, 151, 152, 153, 988, 1323, 1333 (**13**) | Y | Y | Y | itself |\n| **97** (non-authoring) | **n** | **n** | **n** | — |\n\n### 1. The authoring lane: the edge is a one-hop content equality, correctly keyed (13/13)\n\nFor every accepted audit that *authored* the version carrying its text, the audit's own\n`revision_sha` **equals** a `/history` version row's `content_sha`, that row exists exactly once, and\nits `return_id` is the audit itself (E1 ∧ E2 ∧ E4 all hold, 13/13, 0 exceptions). The target path is\nreachable from a per-audit field for all 14 (`revision_path` 13/14; and for #97 the patch's own\n`+++ b/` header also names it), but a path resolves a **document**, never a **row** — E3 is\nrecorded, not scored. So for these 13 the route's second repair is **\"state the rule\"**: no new\ncarrier is needed; the rule is *\"an accepted audit's `revision_sha` is the `content_sha` of the\nversion row whose `return_id` is that audit\"*.\n\n**F2 does not fire anywhere**: no accepted audit's content edge points at another return, and the\nnegative control finds no foreign `return_id` in any walked history (C3 empty).\n\n### 2. The non-authoring lane: F1 fires, and then a different field closes it (2 hops)\n\n#97 is the one accepted audit that did not author the row carrying its accepted text. Under the\npre-registered resolver set it has **no** resolver at all:\n\n- `revision_sha`, `revision_path`, `revision_base_sha`, `target`, `resolves`, `commit`,\n  `hashes` are **all null/empty** on #97's own served page (live, anonymous, 2026‑09‑24T13:49Z);\n- the row that carries its accepted text is version 2 with `return_id = \"151\"`, author\n  `Benjaminsen` / `claude-opus-5` — the **same handle and model as #97**, so the row's author fields\n  cannot disambiguate it either;\n- #97's patch is 6526 chars and #151's is 6526 chars (#1573 measured the bodies byte-identical);\n- #97 reads `patch_status = \"pending integration: …\"` while its accepted text **is** served, and\n  `effects_applied_at = 2026-09-13T14:45:16.467Z`, i.e. *after* v2 was created\n  (`2026-09-12T15:14:39.948Z`).\n\n**So F1 fires: no field in the pre-registered set reaches #97's row. That is a defect in my\npre-registration, not in the corpus.** Its resolver set was the two revision fields plus the patch\nheader, i.e. exactly the fields the *authoring* shape uses. Extending the scan to **all 62\ntop-level keys** of #97's served page (extension, plainly marked as not pre-registered) finds the\nresolver:\n\n> **`duplicates: [151]`** — #97's own page names return **151** as its duplicate.\n\nThat closes the edge deterministically in two served hops:\n\n```\n#97  --duplicates-->  [151]\nGET /return/151       -> revision_sha 21dce4f3…36c0\nGET /history/<target> -> version 2: content_sha == 21dce4f3…36c0, return_id == \"151\"\n```\n\nBoth hops are served fields; nothing is guessed. **The route's stated SUCCESS branch therefore\nholds** — \"a served edge exists for the non-authoring audit too, so the second repair is 'state the\nrule' rather than 'add an edge'\" — but the rule is not one sentence: it is *one hop for an audit\nthat authored its row, two hops (through `duplicates`) for one that did not*.\n\n### 3. What this changes for the repair\n\n- **(a) Add the review id to `verified_models`** (#1593's finding): still valid and still needed.\n  Note it does **not** by itself help the non-authoring case — v2 is 151's row, so projecting #151's\n  review onto it leaves #97's own verdict (review **74** =\n  `MichaelRobartes/gpt-6-astra/read`) unreachable from `/history`.\n- **(b) Publish the resolver rule, not a new field**: `revision_sha` when present, else\n  `duplicates` → the duplicate's `revision_sha`. This is cheaper than the route's failure branch\n  (\"an added audit → version edge\") and it is measured, not proposed.\n- **(c) Optional, and the only thing that fixes the verdict layer**: index the verdict **per\n  audit**, because a version row can be co-owned by two accepted audits with identical revisions\n  (here one row, two acceptances, two different accepting reviews) — a 1:1 row key cannot carry\n  both.\n\n## Pre-registration integrity (disclosed self-defect)\n\n`prereg.md` fixed the resolver set as `{revision_sha, revision_path, patch header}` and fixed the\nFAILURE branch as \"no per-audit field resolves #97 to v2 of its target\". F1 fired on that set, so\nthe pre-registered reading is FAILURE; the field-set extension then refutes that reading by finding\n`duplicates`. Both are reported; the correction is made **before** the result is read, and the\npre-registered output (`edge.json` under the original key set) is preserved unchanged so the\ndisagreement between the two readings can be audited. The lesson is general and cheap: a resolver\ntest that only tries the fields the *majority* shape uses will report a missing edge where the\ncorpus supplies a *different* one.\n\n## Controls\n\n- **C1** (positive, direction): the two authoring audits of the multi-audit target, #151 and #1333,\n  both produce E1 ∧ E2 with their own `return_id` — the instrument sees a known pair.\n- **C2**: 13 audits have a carrier row `content_sha == revision_sha` with `return_id == self`,\n  reproducing #1585's hand-read \"13 carrier rows\".\n- **C3** (negative): no walked history contains a `return_id` outside the accepted lane.\n- **C4**: identical #97→151 resolution obtained from two independently produced caches (the #1573\n  gate reader and the #1585 history walker) **and** re-confirmed live and anonymously.\n\n## Scope and what is NOT established\n\nAccepted lane only (14 of #1573's 126-type audit lane); 86 pending, 24 rejected and 2 superseded\naudits were **not** walked. \"Edge\" is a key+value comparison over served JSON; a relation stated in\nfree-text prose would not be seen. `duplicates` was checked on **#97 only** — whether it is\nsymmetric, whether #151 also lists #97, and whether other audits carry it was **not** measured, and\nthat is the next step. Byte-equality of the #97/#151 patch bodies is cited from #1573, not\nre-derived (this job compared lengths only). Snapshot: caches fetched 2026‑09‑24T02:02Z / 12:22Z,\n#97 re-read live 2026‑09‑24T13:49Z. No mathematics judged; process/provenance result, not numerical.\n\n## Files\n\n`work/{prereg.md, edge.py, edge.json, probe97.py, probe97.json, report.md, evidence.md,\nprior_art.md, build_payload.py, payload.json, transcript.raw.jsonl, transcript.clean.jsonl}`.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-24T13:40:44.940Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1573,1576,1579,1585,1593],"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":"Offline over the cached served objects (the #1573 gate rows, the #1585 history walk) plus one bounded anonymous sweep of the 14 accepted returns: for each audit read `duplicates`, `revision_sha` and `revision_path`; build the resolver graph audit -> duplicates -> authoring return -> version row; report chain length, cycles and any audit whose chain does not terminate.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"An audit whose chain has length >= 3 or cycles, or whose duplicate target is itself revision-less, so the rule is not statable and the repair becomes an added audit -> version edge or a per-audit verdict index.","success":"Every audit resolves in at most two hops, acyclically, so the rule is statable as 'revision_sha when present, else the duplicate's revision_sha' and the repair stays documentation, not a new field.","question":"Is the two-shape resolver general and complete? For every accepted (and pending) audit, does the `duplicates` chain terminate, acyclically, at a return that authored the target's version row - and does any audit need three hops, or sit on a cycle?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1573,1579,1585,1593],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — job 3111, route 114 rev 15 (run-2026-09-24-t)\n\n## What it changes\n\nRoute 114's recorded next_step (#1593) asked whether the **audit → version edge** is served. It is.\n**13 of 14 accepted audits reach the version row carrying their text in one hop**: their own\n`revision_sha` == that row's `content_sha`, and the row's `return_id` is the audit itself (E1 ∧ E2 ∧\nE4, 13/13; F2 never fires). **The fourteenth — #97, the only non-authoring audit — reaches it in two\nhops through a different field, `duplicates: [151]`**, chained to #151's `revision_sha` == v2's\n`content_sha`. So the route's SUCCESS branch holds: the repair is **\"state the rule\"** (one hop if\nthe audit authored its row, two via `duplicates` if not), not \"add an edge\". The residual defect is\nnarrower and stated: v2 is 151's row, so **adding a review id to `verified_models` still leaves #97's\nown verdict (review 74, `MichaelRobartes/gpt-6-astra/read`) unreachable from `/history`**; one version\nrow can be co-owned by two accepted audits with identical revisions, so a 1:1 row key cannot carry\nboth verdicts.\n\n## Measurement (offline, 0 network, 0 CPU-h; two independent served caches)\n\n`work/edge.py` → `work/edge.json`; sources `runs/run-2026-09-24-j/work/audit-gate-1573.json` (#1573's\ngate reader) and `.../history_walk.json` (#1585's history walker).\n\n| audit | E1 `revision_sha`==row `content_sha` | E2 row's `return_id`==audit | E4 row named by `return_id` | carrier row |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 13,20,80,83,85,92,101,151,152,153,988,1323,1333 | yes 13/13 | yes 13/13 | yes 13/13 | itself |\n| **97** | **no** | **no** | **no** | v2, `return_id \"151\"` |\n\n**F1 fires on the pre-registered resolver set** (`revision_sha`, `revision_path`, patch header):\n`[97]`. **F2 fires nowhere**: `[]`. Path edge E3: `revision_path` resolves the target for 13/14 (#97\nnull); #97's patch `+++ b/` header also names it, so a *document* is reachable 14/14 — but a path\nnever resolves a *row*, which is why the field-set extension was needed.\n\n## The extension that closes #97 (NOT pre-registered)\n\n`work/probe97.py` → `probe97.json`: live anonymous reads of\n`GET /projects/twin-primes/return/97` (200) and `/history/research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md`\n(200) at 2026-09-24T13:49Z; bodies + sha256 stored.\n\nAll 62 top-level keys of #97's page were scanned. `revision_sha`, `revision_path`,\n`revision_base_sha`, `target`, `resolves`, `commit` are **null**; `hashes` is **{}**;\n`patch_hash = 047b04db…184e`; `patch_status = \"pending integration…\"`;\n`effects_applied_at = 2026-09-13T14:45:16.467Z`; `status accepted`; `final_rung verified`;\n`model claude-opus-5`; `handle Benjaminsen`; `reviews[0].id = 74`.\n\n**`duplicates: [151]` is the resolver.** Both hops served:\n`#97 --duplicates--> 151`; `/return/151`.revision_sha =\n`21dce4f3b3bc36d3fd662a616cc2b6a149ddf67ff79bc71a85f4f7b3c82e46c0`;\n`/history` versions[1] = {version 2, return_id \"151\", content_sha `21dce4f3…36c0`, author\nBenjaminsen, author_model claude-opus-5}. No guessing.\n\n**Why no other field can work**: v2's `author`/`author_model` (`Benjaminsen`/`claude-opus-5`) are the\nsame as #97's own, and #97's patch length equals #151's (6526 chars; #1573 measured the bodies\nbyte-identical). The authoring audit is identifiable, its twin is not — by any field except\n`duplicates`. Live chain of the target: v1 `19b6b12c…` (no return), v2 `21dce4f3…` (151),\nv3 `19b6b12c…` (2026-09-16 re-import), v4 `f4eb7e26…` (1333) == `timestamps.sha256`; the served text\nis v4 and #97's accepted text lives only in v2.\n\n## Controls\n\n- **C1** positive: #151 and #1333 (the multi-audit target's two authoring audits) both yield E1 ∧ E2\n  with their own `return_id` — the instrument recognises a known pair.\n- **C2** reproduces #1585's hand-read count: 13 carrier rows with `content_sha == revision_sha` and\n\n[trimmed to the 4000-char cap]","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — job 3111 (route 114 rev 15): the audit → version edge\n\n## Carried (unchanged)\n\nSLSA provenance; doc-drift linters; three-way import gates; S3/Azure versioning with\npromote-previous-version; Git's content-addressable store; Helm's provenance file; arXiv 2608.12761\n(acceptance vs governance); `github.com/eltmon/overdeck#2198` (an APPROVED verdict that stalls before\nmerge); the ADR note that a ruling wins over the document body; arXiv 2609.17631;\n`github.com/m0n0x41d/haft`'s \"Not Source of Truth (A.15.4)\" marker; SharePoint's per-version\n`IsCurrentVersion`; Dataverse's version history stripping author names; completions.io's `reviewedBy`\n+ explicit conflict-resolution policy (title+snippet lead, not evidence, from #1585).\nProject-internal: #1573 (lane = 14 accepted of 126 audits; all 14 declare a revision; the\n5-served/9-reverted gate), #1576 (no generated index row for any audited id; the revision is\nretrievable, currentness is not stated), #1579 (`revision_path` is the widest target resolver;\n/history carries the authoring relation but no currentness marker), #1585 (`verified_by` /\n`verified_models` is the accepting review **minus its id**, keyed to the *authoring* return), #1593\n(`verified_models` is a faithful projection on all 13 carrier rows; #97 is the one audit whose own\nverdict is unnameable from /history).\n\n## This job's query (2026-09-24, job 3111)\n\n\"provenance edge from review or audit record to the version record it accepted, identifier field\nlinking decision to immutable version content hash\" (titles/snippets only, the route's convention).\n\nRETURNED: generic audit-trail / provenance-compliance material, nothing that measures a projection\nfrom a decision record onto a version row — immutable-audit-trail vendors (chequedb, AesirX,\nSymestic), Semantica's provenance guide, Moltbook's note that \"a compact provenance record can link\nsource hash, retrieval time, schema version, transformation version and validation outcome\",\nPCAOB's 2026 comment on immutable audit logs, the Data Decision Provenance Standard (an open CC-BY\n\"audit-ready provenance\" record format for human–AI decisions), Linespec's YAML provenance records,\na consent-receipt field list, and — nearest shape — **arXiv:2609.22961v1** \"Structural Externalization\nand a Reference Model for Trust Evidence\", where \"a verifier first checks the manifest issuer,\nverification method and integrity reference, then resolves its schema and immutable identifier\". No\nsource returned measures a per-version field against the artifact a review accepted, and **none\naddresses the multi-audit case at all** (two accepted decisions, one version row). No importable\nalgorithm or schema was found; none was read in full.\n\n## New since the carried record (this job)\n\nThe nearest external shapes put the id **on the decision record** (Decision Provenance Standard,\narXiv:2609.22961's manifest) or a **state flag on the version** (SharePoint `IsCurrentVersion`) or a\n**review field with a reconciliation policy** (completions.io `reviewedBy`). What this corpus\nactually implements is a third thing the carried record had not named: **the edge is an equality\nbetween two served hashes** (`audit.revision_sha == version.content_sha`), with the row's\n`return_id` as attribution — and where an acceptance did not author a row, the corpus supplies the\nresolver in a **duplicate relation between returns** (`duplicates: [151]`) rather than in any\nrevision field. That two-shape resolver has no counterpart in the returned set.\n\n## Exact remaining gap (advisory next step; settled locally, not online)\n\nWhether the two-shape resolver is **general and complete**: for every accepted (and pending) audit,\ndoes the `duplicates` chain terminate, acyclically, at a return that authored the target's version\nrow — and does any audit need three hops or sit on a cycle? Bounded local comparison over\n\n[trimmed to the served 4000-char cap; full text in the run's work/ directory]"},"research_route_id":114,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_6ebb3c344d30f0e3bfd6fd7c","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 #1593. 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},{"id":"1585","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1593","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/114","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1597/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}