{"id":1700,"job_id":3377,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"audit","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# `paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.md`: five residual Draft 1 inferences and the five part-(a)–(e) corrections (#554, #555)\n\nAudit of the served `paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.md` (`8a483fd6`, 69210 B, 244 lines; the `content_sha` of both findings). **14 anchored edits in the manuscript, each anchor asserted unique, diff 20 lines**, plus one revision to the producer `tct2458.py` (return #1161's file).\n\n**#554, the five residual inferences.** (1) §1 para 2 no longer says forcing the index to grow \"prices out at the coordinate-free cap of §6\"; the cap is stated for what it is, an upper bound on the kills a window of fixed span can carry (§6 Fact 2, §9 item 14). (2) §6 Fact 1's \"The verdict is a negative reached from an optimistic truncation, which only strengthens it\" is deleted, which removes the contradiction with §6's preamble. (3) §6 Fact 3's heading is now \"the gap histogram is not closed\" (it was \"no statistic coarser than the word is closed\"), and the fixed-modulus/CRT sentence is labelled **inferred**. (4) §5's first sentence now reads \"and its support endpoint is exact (§9 item 16)\", with the fold-17 witness (refined right side 40 against $N_{\\mathrm{new}} = 20$) carried in the same sentence, replacing \"and it costs nothing\". (5) The excess is stated as measured at the four folds where it was measured — under $0.007$ at 29, 31, 37, 41 — in the abstract; \"tends to 1 like $1-2/(q-2)$\" is labelled **conjectured** in §5; and §9 item 19 drops \"shrinking\" (the excess rises $+0.004, +0.005, +0.006$ at 31, 37, 41, as the same paragraph already prints).\n\n**#555, five parts, all applied from the producer's own output rather than from the finding's paraphrase.** (a) §5's sharp form now reads a maximal ratio of **$0.9904$ to $1.0000$** (was $0.990$ to $0.9999$), and the $1.0000$ cases are named: $T_{19}$ for $q = 41$ to $89$ and $T_{23}$ for $107, 109$ — both read off `tct2458-table.txt`, where the sharp-max column runs $0.9904$ ($13 \\to 17$) to $1.0000$ and the $T_{23}$ rows $107$ and $109$ reach $1.0000$. (b) §5's \"20 to 39 per cent\" is now attributed to the rows it actually covers (the producer's output mixes the consecutive folds with the non-consecutive $T_{19}$ rows; the consecutive folds 29 to 41 carry no merge-share figure), and the loose argmax is given in both conventions — $\\theta = 31/37$ in `tct2458.py` against $36/42$ in the paper's table, the same step. (c) §3's closing remark loses the stray ellipsis after $G_2(T_{13})$. (d) The MRS entry now reconciles the locators: referee report 71 places the 2-charge example on printed page 47, and the registry's page-75 locator is marked as not reconciled rather than silently kept. (e) `tct2458.py`'s wall-time field moves to stderr: the stdout print keeps every figure and drops the trailing `| T s`, the timing is printed to stderr instead, and the §10 entry records the revision.\n\n**Evidence for (e), run here.** `python3 tct2458.py 13,17 17,19 19,23` reproduces the recorded rows to the digit — loose maxima $0.8881 @\\theta=31$, $0.8975 @31$, $0.9180 @37$; sharp maxima $0.9904, 0.9915, 0.9955$; baselines $0.8667, 0.8824, 0.9048$; merge shares $0.3930, 0.3103, 0.2612$; identity gaps $216, 3264, 35906$; `slack_above_G2=None`, zero violations — and **two consecutive runs give byte-identical stdout** while the timing now goes to stderr, which is the property the finding asks for.\n\n**Disclosed, not applied.** #555(d)'s request for the MRS **URL and SHA256** is **not satisfied**: report 71's text is not retrievable from this session (no `/report/71` or review-by-id route; the project search route does not exist), and neither `research/PRIOR-ART.md` nor return #1154's `sources2458.md` carries the URL or the digest. The locator reconciliation was done; the URL/SHA half of (d) is left open for the next job and is stated as such in the entry itself, so #555 should be read as partly answered.\n\n**Scope.** The manuscript revision is confined to the fourteen sentences above; no number, table cell, section heading or attribution is otherwise changed, no embedded block exists in the .md (`grep` 0) so nothing needed re-embedding, and the script revision is confined to the one print statement.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-09-25T13:07:14.386Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1161]},"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":"tailcount-transport","revision_path":"paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.md","revision_sha":"21bd340ba9fd9ac1cffa606763f9ce223e3836d24af003dfb8b6839b07ab0b12","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":"2026-09-25T13:07:14.386Z","department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_38d95bd5a74ef092c8f07252","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":"8a483fd6051f19bb5ff58113ad426d0815ecbd6fc08a8eee7a5e29c2bce09234","integration":null,"resolves":[554,555],"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"A reviewer found a defect in the served file `paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.md` while reviewing return #1161 (review #344 by @Benjaminsen), recorded as finding #554. Fix it; do not redo the work it belongs to.\n\nWhat the reviewer said:\n> Remove five residual Draft 1 inferences that contradict the corrected body. (1) §1 para 2: delete 'and forcing the index to grow prices out at the coordinate-free cap of §6'; the cap is an upper bound on kills for a fixed span (§6 Fact 2, §9 item 14). (2) §6 Fact 1: delete 'The verdict is a negative reached from an optimistic truncation, which only strengthens it.' It contradicts §6's preamble and report 71 §1. (3) §6 Fact 3 heading: replace 'no statistic coarser than the word is closed' with 'the gap histogram is not closed', and label the fixed-modulus/CRT sentence inferred. (4) §5 first sentence: replace 'and it costs nothing' with 'and its support endpoint is exact' (§9 item 16; fold 17 has 20 vs 40). (5) Abstract and §5: state the excess 'under 0.007' as measured at folds 29, 31, 37, 41; label 'tends to 1 like 1 - 2/(q-2)' conjectured; in §9 item 19 drop 'shrinking' (the excess rises from +0.004 to +0.005 to +0.006 at folds 31, 37, 41).\n\nFetch the current file (GET <project base>/docs/paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.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\": \"paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.md\", \"file\": \"<sha256 of the revised file>\" }`, the sha in `files`, a one-line report of what changed and why, and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [1161] }`. 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=paper/proposals/prop-tailcount-transport.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 #555 (review #344 of return #1161, @Benjaminsen):\n> (a) §5: sharp maximal ratio is 0.9904 to 1.0000 (1.0000 at T19 by 41..89 and T23 by 107, 109), not 0.990 to 0.9999. (b) §5: the '20 to 39 per cent' merge share mixes consecutive folds with non-consecutive T19 rows; the consecutive folds 29 to 41 have no merge-share figure. Loose argmax θ = 31/37 in tct2458 vs 36/42 in the text is the same step. (c) §3 closing remark: stray '...' after G_2(T_13). (d) References: give the MRS URL and SHA256 as report 71 does, and reconcile the p. 47 / p. 75 locators with report 71 (which places the 2-charge example on printed p. 47). (e) tct2458.py line 64: move the wall-time field to stderr so stdout is byte-stable.\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/1700/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"21bd340ba9fd9ac1cffa606763f9ce223e3836d24af003dfb8b6839b07ab0b12","name":"paper-proposals-prop-tailcount-transport.md","bytes":70398},{"sha256":"8d031ebf873b51ee482e92d488a0e820a0ebb29ea4e84c5432cc0311118556e1","name":"tct2458.py","bytes":5449}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}