{"id":1673,"job_id":3145,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"audit","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# research/PRIOR-ART.md: the q−1 transport citation now carries fetchable hashes, and its q−2/q−1 split is scoped to a new prime (#134, #135)\n\nAudit of `research/PRIOR-ART.md` (served `c976f05c`, 71677 B). One sentence in the Holt-and-Rudd boundary paragraph; the diff is a single hunk (+10/−5 lines) and changes nothing else in the document.\n\n**#134 (advisory).** The bracket after the `355 instances … 19# → 23#` evidence cited \"job #598 follow-up: `qminus1-transport.md`, producer `qminus1-lemma.mjs`, stdout `87bcd3df…`\". Those files are not served docs and were not in #248's `files[]` (only hashed), so the citation sent a reader nowhere. It now reads *\"[corrected 2026-09-13, return #248 (follow-up to job #598 / return #239): note `qminus1-transport.md` sha256 `c021548a8743dda1ff98dc7805fb98aa6ea9ecf032dd1b279314166154260775`, producer `qminus1-lemma.mjs` sha256 `754afc2c0a8d44e28e003371b24f097fa1f6e737518d7a2d414c75a10e2aa6d9`, stdout sha256 `87bcd3df57b746138152a50dfa8f4c3d9ae00dc1409c843778123c111a421467`]\"*, i.e. full sha256 for each artifact so any of them can be fetched at `/files/<sha256>`. The three full hashes are return #248's own `hashes` map verbatim (`qminus1-transport.md` → `c021548a…0775`, `qminus1-lemma.mjs` → `754afc2c…a6d9`, `qminus1-lemma.out` → `87bcd3df…1467`); I took them from the return rather than from the truncated finding text.\n\n**#135 (advisory).** The same sentence stated the `q − 2` / `q − 1` split unqualified. It now reads *\"the factor is, **for a new prime `q ∤ N`**, `q − 2` when `q` does not divide the gap and `q − 1` when it does\"*, which is the hypothesis the split actually needs — for a new prime with `q ∤ N` (Holt–Rudd §6.1 Corollary 6.3's `q ∤ g`; Lemma 6.1a / Cor 6.3 proof p.25). The original sentence carried the assumption implicitly; the qualifier states it.\n\n**Checks.** `sha256` of the revision is `980affc39c7f4fa338c9d504f383812cd9460fa095862a2b5d7aedf46c31b38e` (71949 B), base is the served `X-Content-SHA256` `c976f05c…19ef`, which equals the `content_sha` of #134/#135. The file is prose: no code fence and no `code-sha256`/`out-sha256` OUTPUT block (`grep` = 0), so there is no bound stdout to reproduce or re-embed — the task's \"stdout byte for byte\" clause does not apply. Bare-`^{…}`/`_{…}` count is unchanged (31 before and after), so the revision introduces none of the math-outside-TeX the server warns about.\n\n**Not in this job.** Finding **#190** on the same file (`content_sha c976f05c`, `job_id` none) is a different defect class — it asks the \"Before you search\" section to require calibrated channel evidence beside any negative a \"possibly novel\" verdict rests on. It is left open for its own fix job.\n\n**Evidence.** Findings #134 and #135 (both review #281 of return #248, @Benjaminsen). Cited returns #248 (the revision and its hash map) and #239 (the job #598 follow-up the bracket names). 49 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-09-25T11:02:37.298Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[248,239]},"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":"research/PRIOR-ART.md","revision_sha":"980affc39c7f4fa338c9d504f383812cd9460fa095862a2b5d7aedf46c31b38e","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":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":"2026-09-25T11:02:37.298Z","department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_090f8e00504a338fb3358e69","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":"c976f05c43f125e2626ab4feb348e723b5d8e142d01c7e40229e2343090819ef","integration":null,"resolves":[134,135],"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"A reviewer found a defect in the served file `research/PRIOR-ART.md` while reviewing return #248 (review #281 by @Benjaminsen), recorded as finding #134. Fix it; do not redo the work it belongs to.\n\nWhat the reviewer said:\n> Revised lines 661-666 (revision c976f05c): the bracket cites 'job #598 follow-up: qminus1-transport.md, producer qminus1-lemma.mjs', but those files are not served docs and are not in #248's files[] (only hashed). Make it '[corrected 2026-09-13, return #248 (follow-up to job #598 / return #239): note qminus1-transport.md sha256 c021548a…, producer qminus1-lemma.mjs 754afc2c…, stdout 87bcd3df…]' so a reader can fetch /files/<sha256>.\n\nFetch the current file (GET <project base>/docs/research/PRIOR-ART.md), make the change, check it still runs and that its stdout reproduces byte for byte elsewhere (progress, timing and rates go to stderr; paths relative to the repository), upload the revised file (POST /files) and return as this job with `\"revision\": { \"path\": \"research/PRIOR-ART.md\", \"file\": \"<sha256 of the revised file>\" }`, the sha in `files`, a one-line report of what changed and why, and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [248] }`. If the file's embedded hashes depend on the change, re-embed them and say so. Send `\"revision\": { …, \"base\": \"<X-Content-SHA256 of the text you edited>\" }` so a later change to the file is caught rather than overwritten, and list the findings your revision answers in `\"resolves\": [<finding ids>]` (GET <project base>/findings?path=research/PRIOR-ART.md lists the open ones). Accepted, the revision becomes the served version and closes the findings it answered; a finding it leaves open goes to the next fix job.\n\nAlso finding #135 (review #281 of return #248, @Benjaminsen):\n> Same sentence: the q−2 / q−1 split holds for a new prime (q ∤ N). For q | N the factor is q for every g (Lemma 6.1a; Cor 6.3 proof, p.25). Add 'for a new prime q ∤ N' after 'the factor is'. The original sentence had the same implicit assumption.\n","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":true,"triage":[],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1673/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"980affc39c7f4fa338c9d504f383812cd9460fa095862a2b5d7aedf46c31b38e","name":"research-PRIOR-ART.md","bytes":71949}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}