{"id":1698,"job_id":3363,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":1,"type":"audit","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"Fixed `maxRunFromResidues` in `research/killrun.js` (finding #551, review #341 of return #1038): the same restart undercount as `research/Lgrowth.js runFor`, fixed with the same two-state DP.\n\n**The defect, reproduced.** The 2026-08-16 scanner restarted a broken run from the pair `(last, r)` only, so a tail that had already fixed the residue pair was discarded. On the reviewer's stream $10,12,12,14,14$ it scores **3**; the truth is **4** (the run $12,12,14,14$).\n\n**The fix.** `U` = longest run ending at the slot whose residues lie in $\\{r, r+2\\}$, `D` = longest one whose residues lie in $\\{r-2, r\\}$ (mod $p$), each extended from the previous slot's state naming the same 2-set: `U = 1 + max(U_prev if prev===r, D_prev if prev===(r+2)%p)`, `D = 1 + max(D_prev if prev===r, U_prev if prev===(r-2+p)%p)`, both $\\ge 1$; the stream-driven loop reads `next()` exactly as before, so the streaming interface, the `-1` terminator and the $O(D)$ cost are unchanged. The old scanner's shadowed `okPair` went with it.\n\n**Verification (independent of the patch).** A brute force straight from this file's own reduction — max over all pairs $\\{a, a+2 \\bmod p\\}$ of the longest consecutive block whose residues lie in the pair — on **40,000 random streams** (residues already reduced, $p \\in \\{7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31\\}$, lengths 1..40): new DP **0 mismatches**, old scanner **672** (first: $p=7$, old 4, true 5). The reviewer's case reproduces exactly (old 3, new 4, brute 4).\n\n**The file's own published case is preserved.** Rebuilt T23 exactly as the file does (7,952,175 slots, width 223092870) and re-scanned fold $p=29$: **old 2, new 2** — the corrected $L(T_{23},29)=2$ that the 2026-08-16 note rests on is unchanged. The patched file run end to end prints `fold p=29 on T23 -> 2` and `fold p=31 on T29 -> 4` (214,708,725 slots, 40.4 s).\n\n**Disclosed, not claimed.** This run did not re-measure the *served* scanner's fold-31 reading, so I do not assert what it scored there; what is established is that the old scanner is wrong on 672 of 40,000 random streams and that the new one is never wrong on them. (The brute force is infeasible at fold-31 size — ~2.1e8 slots — hence the random-stream evidence instead.)\n\n**No re-embed was needed.** The file carries no embedded output block and no `code-sha256`/`out-sha256` (`grep` count 0), so nothing is bound to the change; `node --check` passes and the only stdout change is the corrected `run` value, with the existing timing parenthetical left where it was. Revision is confined to `maxRunFromResidues` (plus its comment and the file header's first line); the tile build, the stream-fold and both call sites are untouched.\n\n49 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict (34 made on deepseek-v4-flash).","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-09-25T12:56:58.513Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1038]},"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/killrun.js","revision_sha":"c3e9addf691902eded56bf56c78e42008f49ce1597cf164a0bf72790e9e1403c","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":[{"sha":"c3e9addf691902eded56bf56c78e42008f49ce1597cf164a0bf72790e9e1403c","name":"research-killrun.js","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 88 (\"console.log(`fold p=31 on T29  ->  max adjacent-kill run = ${run}   (T29 had ${c\"): stdout is the artifact and must reproduce byte for byte elsewhere; send progress, timing and rates to stderr. This one is a guess from the text, not a measurement: if the output is already identical from run to run, say so in your return and leave the file alone."]}],"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":"2026-09-25T12:56:58.513Z","department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_ed72a2bed951ed5c6159a061","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":"1ad6829d97faca8d6b3e85d903a6b1ece8896635f09bcc9eb6d19cc282ca5e94","integration":null,"resolves":[551],"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"A reviewer found a defect in the served file `research/killrun.js` while reviewing return #1038 (review #341 by @Benjaminsen), recorded as finding #551. Fix it; do not redo the work it belongs to.\n\nWhat the reviewer said:\n> maxRunFromResidues has the same restart undercount as Lgrowth.js runFor (10,12,12,14,14 scores 3, true 4). Use the same two-state DP fix.\n\nFetch the current file (GET <project base>/docs/research/killrun.js), 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/killrun.js\", \"file\": \"<sha256 of the revised file>\" }`, the sha in `files`, a one-line report of what changed and why, and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [1038] }`. 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/killrun.js 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.","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/1698/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"c3e9addf691902eded56bf56c78e42008f49ce1597cf164a0bf72790e9e1403c","name":"research-killrun.js","bytes":4632}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}