{"id":1684,"job_id":3206,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"audit","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# research/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.md: install #329's uninstalled source half, then\nadd the Outcome line under the ledger block (job 3206)\n\nTwo findings on one file, and they are one edit apart.\n\n**#803 — the half-integrated accepted return.** Accepted #329 (`final_rung verified`,\n`revision_path research/QUESTIONS.md`, `revision_sha d47cc818…`) updated the **registry** row for\n`Q-perfold-window` and left the **source ledger** at the served `6ec866ee3748…` (10299 B, still\n`status: OPEN`). Its source blob is the one finding #162 names:\n`/files/fad411f193b5de485f8c1b20dcb839330a601d8f4f05b812d40d63918d28f772` (10520 B) — fetched,\nsha re-computed and matched. Against the served file its diff is **exactly the ledger block**:\n`status: OPEN` -> `status: ANSWERED`, and the verdict replaced by the scored verdict (blind window\n`[6.6e10, 6.6e10+2e9)`, 33 of 37 folds inside the sealed 90% bands against the needed >= 28, 0\noutside the 99.73% bands against the allowed <= 1, independent re-sieve/re-score in\n`redteam-0820-empirical.md` T1.b, producer `attack-perfold-02-blindwindow.js` Stage D). **No line**\noutside the block moves, so the sealed body is byte-identical under this step. This is the sixth\nsource-side-lost revision of the day and the recipe in\n`.solveathome/research/lost-source-side-revision-1676-1679.md` again needed no change.\n\n**#166 — the reader-facing outcome line.** With the ledger now ANSWERED, the sealed body's own\nopening (\"pre-registration only. Nothing here is a measurement\") would read as a contradiction, so\nexactly one line is inserted **directly under the ledger block**, i.e. immediately after the\nclosing `-->` and above the blank line that the corpus places before body prose:\n\n> Outcome: scored HIT (33/37 inside 90%, 0/37 outside 99.73%); see perfold-error-model.md section 5\n> and redteam-0820-empirical.md T1.b.\n\nThe placement was checked against the corpus convention before writing: sibling staging ledgers\n(`recon-0830-smooth-aps.md` and this file) carry the block, a blank line, then the first content\nparagraph, so the new line goes under the block and the blank separator stays. `diff` against #329's\nblob is **exactly one inserted line** (`+` only, no `-`), which is the check for \"sealed text\nbyte-identical\".\n\n`resolves [166, 803]`, `cites.returns [329]`. Revision\n`fcfed88dfdeb998b7fb8b677a811f197b6b8ef2cfb04d65b35c54f26ac19391a` (10654 B), base = the served sha `6ec866ee…`.\n\n**Checks.** The file is **not** fence-free: it carries two fenced blocks — the sealed band table\n(lines 72-112) and a reproduction-command block (`node research/qc/embed.js --check --timeout 400\nresearch/attack-perfold-01-error-model.js` plus the producer at lines 169-172). Neither is a\nhash-bound OUTPUT block: `grep -c 'code-sha256'` = 0 and `grep -c 'out-sha256'` = 0 in the served\nfile, in #329's blob and in this revision, so **no embedded hash depends on the change and there is\nnothing to re-embed**; the embedded-hash clause of the task is therefore vacuous here rather than\nsatisfied. The inserted line is line 10, outside both fences, and `diff` shows no other line moved,\nso the band table and the command block are untouched byte for byte. Note for the reviewer: the\nreproduction block's `--check` command cannot be run from this folder (no checkout of the\nmanuscript's `research/qc/` here), which is consistent with the file being a staging ledger whose\nfenced content is quoted, not produced, on this page. Exactly one `-->` closing the ledger and one `status:` line; `id`, `todo` and the `question:`\nline unchanged; `status: ANSWERED` exactly once and the new `Outcome:` line exactly once. No bare-TeX\nconstruct introduced. Base sent as the served sha, so a later change to the file is caught rather\nthan overwritten.\n\n**Evidence.** Served `/docs/research/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.md` (`6ec866ee…`) fetched\nand grepped 2026-09-25; `/files/fad411f1…` (sha verified, = #329's source half); return #329 (status\n`accepted`, `revision_path research/QUESTIONS.md`, `revision_sha d47cc818…`, files include\n`registry-725.patch` `b0f9df32…`); findings on the file: **#162** (open, `job_id` null — it is the one\nthat names the blob), **#166** and **#803** (both assigned here), all three with `content_sha\n6ec866ee…`, i.e. fresh against the served text.\n\n**Not done here (needs its own regeneration job):** the `research/QUESTIONS.md` row for\n`Q-perfold-window` is generated from this ledger block; with the source now ANSWERED the row is\nconsistent with #329's registry text, and a regeneration should be a no-op for this row — worth\nconfirming rather than assuming.\n\n44 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict (job 3206's brief).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-09-25T12:01:26.529Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[329]},"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/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.md","revision_sha":"fcfed88dfdeb998b7fb8b677a811f197b6b8ef2cfb04d65b35c54f26ac19391a","recipe_md":"1. GET /projects/twin-primes/docs/research/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.md -> served sha 6ec866ee...,\n`grep -c 'status: OPEN'` = 1. 2. Fetch /files/fad411f193b5de485f8c1b20dcb839330a601d8f4f05b812d40d63918d28f772\n(#329's source half, named by finding #162): 10520 B, sha matches; `diff` against served is the ledger block\nonly. 3. Insert finding #166's one line immediately after the closing `-->`: `Outcome: scored HIT (33/37 inside\n90%, 0/37 outside 99.73%); see perfold-error-model.md section 5 and redteam-0820-empirical.md T1.b.` 4. Check:\n`git diff --no-index` (or difflib) of the result against #329's blob shows exactly one added line and no removed\nline; `grep -c '```'` = 0; no code-sha256/out-sha256 block.","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":"2026-09-25T12:01:26.529Z","department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_e928f074af4c9124eab9f92e","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":"6ec866ee3748145d8aa6539b2134e374e98bebb879d27573a08eb8476c81b7f0","integration":null,"resolves":[166,803],"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"A reviewer found a defect in the served file `research/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.md` while reviewing return #329 (review #294 by @Benjaminsen), recorded as finding #166. Fix it; do not redo the work it belongs to.\n\nWhat the reviewer said:\n> The ledger will say ANSWERED, but the sealed body still opens \"pre-registration only. Nothing here is a measurement\". Suggest one line directly under the ledger block, leaving the sealed text byte-identical: \"Outcome: scored HIT (33/37 inside 90%, 0/37 outside 99.73%); see perfold-error-model.md section 5 and redteam-0820-empirical.md T1.b.\"\n\nFetch the current file (GET <project base>/docs/research/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.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/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.md\", \"file\": \"<sha256 of the revised file>\" }`, the sha in `files`, a one-line report of what changed and why, and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [329] }`. 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/history/staging/perfold-window-prereg.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 #803 (review #382 of return #1331, @Benjaminsen):\n> Accepted #329 was only half-integrated: apply its perfold-window-prereg.md hunk from registry-725.patch (strict git apply on served 6ec866ee gives #329's fad411f1, status ANSWERED). Until then v7 line 608 shows ANSWERED over an OPEN ledger, and regeneration would revert #329.\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/1684/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"fcfed88dfdeb998b7fb8b677a811f197b6b8ef2cfb04d65b35c54f26ac19391a","name":"research-history-staging-perfold-window-prereg.md","bytes":10654}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}