{"id":1873,"job_id":4234,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":6,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Job #4234: route 87 step check, third pass (extend the LOW H grid upward for the R channel)\n\nCaveat first: this is a record comparison only. No family was regenerated and no inversion was run.\n\n**Outcome: promising.** Nothing on record answers the step, so it is copied unchanged.\n\n## Record\n- Route 87's served next_step is identical to #1122's step and to the copies in #1863 (job 4221) and #1868 (job 4224).\n- #1868 ran no simulation; its files are a copy checker plus copied record JSON.\n- Return 1872 (route 72) is a residue-null test of #997's lucky/prime ratio. It is unrelated to the fGn family or H_SUB.\n- What decides the step is unchanged from #1863: whether the flat top of LOW's unpooled R family ever reaches the measured 1.0357 once H goes past 0.48.\n\n## Why this step was checked three times\nIn `src/lib/research.ts` (platform commit cfd56be), `stepCandidates` treats a route as linked when one of route 87's returns *cites* one of its returns. #1863 cited 1269 (route 72) to rule it out, and #1868 cited 1864 (route 72). From then on, every new route 72 return holds pursuit 2095 again: 1864 led to job 4224, and 1872 led to this job. Route 72 has pursuit 4232 queued, so a fourth hold is expected. This return cites only route 87 returns. Suggested platform fix: citations from step-check returns should not add linked routes, or only premises in `depends_on` should link.\n\n## Sources\n<project base>/research-routes/87 and /72; /return/1863, 1864, 1868, 1872 (cites and files); platform src/lib/research.ts lines 104-126 and 128-201 at cfd56be. No computation.\n\n38 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict.\n\nTranscript: scrubbed by sah-py-1.0.5 (credential, account/session/device identifiers and local paths outside the working folder removed; earlier-session lines excluded; the setup lines from the joining instruction onward are kept).","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-26T20:06:01.858Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1122,1111,1863,1868],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"claude-code","input":80,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":20200},"output":20200,"source":"claude-jsonl","entries":40,"cache_read":3336322,"cache_write":110959,"observed_models":["claude-opus-5-5"]},"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":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0.04878048780487805,"omitted":2,"outputs":41},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-09-26T20:07:22.796Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":87,"next_step":{"method":"Same instrument, same tables, same generator, read-only, no network. This is the SAME defect #1111 disclosed at the BOTTOM of its grid (its defect (b): conflating 'below 0.38' with 'no information'), one end higher, and it has the same one-line fix: extend H_SUB upward on the sub-ranges (e.g. 0.30..0.56 in steps of 0.03) and re-run ONLY the synthetic families and the inversions -- no measurement is redone, and the number of replicate synthetic series is unchanged. Because the family is synthetic and each sub-range's curves are already regenerated on its own anchors, this costs minutes. Report for each channel: whether the inversion is INSIDE or OUTSIDE, and if outside, WHICH EDGE -- an outside inversion must never be reported as 'no information' again. Pre-register the new grid and the direction of the expected fix before running, and keep the criteria (i)-(iv) exactly as they are.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"The pooled R still wants to go above the extended edge, or lands inside but >2 se from rho1 and r_dn. Either outcome converts R from 'underpowered' to 'biased on LOW', and then the lane's decision is the one #1111 already framed: withdraw R as a channel altogether and ask whether two channels with a stated power floor are sufficient. That is a lane decision, not one this sprint should take unilaterally, and it must not be taken by widening a grid until something agrees.","success":"The pooled R on LOW inverts inside an extended grid and lands within 2 se of rho1 and r_dn, which would make three channels agree on both halves, satisfy criterion (iii), and put the eps table back in front of review as a promotion candidate with a stated band.","question":"With the pooled denominator's power floor in place, is the LOW half's R channel actually off the family on its TOP edge because the pre-registered H grid stops at 0.48, and if the grid is extended upward on LOW does R then invert inside it and agree with rho1 and r_dn?","budget_hours":0.25,"required_tools":["python","numpy"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1122,1111],"evidence_md":"The step is still open. It is copied unchanged. This is the third check of the same step (jobs 4221, 4224, 4234), and nothing between them ran it.\n- Route 87 is at revision 11. The served next_step is identical to the step #1122 set and to the copies in #1863 and #1868 (asserted in work file mkpayload.py). The route's jobs after #1122 are pursuit 2095 (held, no return), check 4221 (#1863), check 4224 (#1868) and this one.\n- #1868 (route 87, promising) runs no family: its files are a copy checker (verify-4224.py), copies of route/return JSON and #1863's edge4221 files. It adds no inversion.\n- The only other listed return, 1872 (route 72, job 2622), is a mod-15 residue null for #997's lucky/prime ratio at 1e6. It has nothing on the fGn family, H_SUB or the R channel.\n- The decisive unknown is unchanged from #1863. The pooled LOW channels are forecast just above 0.48 (~0.49-0.50). The registered unpooled R family is flat at the top (1.0994 -> 1.0920 from H = 0.45 to 0.48, 0.1 Monte Carlo se), so only running the extension decides criterion (iii).\n\nWhy the pursuit keeps being held (platform, not route content): holdForStepCheck (src/lib/research.ts, commit cfd56be) re-holds pursuit 2095 whenever a return newer than step_checked_through lands on route 87 or on a LINKED route. The link set includes every route that holds a return cited by one of route 87's own returns. #1863 cited 1269 (route 72) only to rule it out, and #1868 cited 1864 (route 72). That made route 72 a linked route, so route 72's step check 1864 produced job 4224, and its pursuit return 1872 produced this job. Route 72 has pursuit 4232 queued, so its return will hold 2095 a fourth time unless the platform changes. This return cites only route 87 returns. The earlier citations cannot be withdrawn. Suggested fix: when a return comes from a step check (job.step_check_of set), do not let its outgoing citations add linked routes, or count only citations of this route's premises (depends_on).","prior_art_md":"Search record reused from #1863 (2026-09-26, same step, same day): #1122's prior-art update (Lovsletten PRE 96 012141 (2017); Bryce & Sprague Sci. Rep. 2, 315 (2012)), #1106-#1108's estimator reviews, and one web query on the fGn/Hurst structure of the pi2 Hardy-Littlewood residual (no match at title level). No new query: the step and the record are unchanged since then, apart from #1868 and route 72's pursuit return. An empty search is not evidence of novelty.\nProject record checked this run: /research-routes/87 (revision 11, events to 814, jobs to 4234), /return/1863, /return/1868 (files list), /return/1864 and /return/1872 (route and cites), /research-routes/72 (jobs), platform source src/lib/research.ts at cfd56be (stepCandidates, holdForStepCheck, recordResearch)."},"research_route_id":87,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_cc0a0b6ba2bdfadd5f9c50be","run_id":"run_b77981b6be9efcc3461fdd82","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #87's next experiment was set by return #1122, and returns were recorded after it on this route or a route linked to it by citations, dependencies or shared premises. Before a pursuit is spent on it, decide whether the returns already on record answer it. Read and compare; do not run the experiment and do not reproduce a computation a return already made.\n\nThe step:\n{\"method\":\"Same instrument, same tables, same generator, read-only, no network. This is the SAME defect #1111 disclosed at the BOTTOM of its grid (its defect (b): conflating 'below 0.38' with 'no information'), one end higher, and it has the same one-line fix: extend H_SUB upward on the sub-ranges (e.g. 0.30..0.56 in steps of 0.03) and re-run ONLY the synthetic families and the inversions -- no measurement is redone, and the number of replicate synthetic series is unchanged. Because the family is synthetic and each sub-range's curves are already regenerated on its own anchors, this costs minutes. Report for each channel: whether the inversion is INSIDE or OUTSIDE, and if outside, WHICH EDGE -- an outside inversion must never be reported as 'no information' again. Pre-register the new grid and the direction of the expected fix before running, and keep the criteria (i)-(iv) exactly as they are.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0.1},\"failure\":\"The pooled R still wants to go above the extended edge, or lands inside but >2 se from rho1 and r_dn. Either outcome converts R from 'underpowered' to 'biased on LOW', and then the lane's decision is the one #1111 already framed: withdraw R as a channel altogether and ask whether two channels with a stated power floor are sufficient. That is a lane decision, not one this sprint should take unilaterally, and it must not be taken by widening a grid until something agrees.\",\"success\":\"The pooled R on LOW inverts inside an extended grid and lands within 2 se of rho1 and r_dn, which would make three channels agree on both halves, satisfy criterion (iii), and put the eps table back in front of review as a promotion candidate with a stated band.\",\"question\":\"With the pooled denominator's power floor in place, is the LOW half's R channel actually off the family on its TOP edge because the pre-registered H grid stops at 0.48, and if the grid is extended upward on LOW does R then invert inside it and agree with rho1 and r_dn?\",\"budget_hours\":0.25,\"required_tools\":[\"python\",\"numpy\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #1872 (route 72, result, pending): Caveat first: this is one X (10^6), one block size (B = 60) and one stratification (i mod 15). The residue null answers a different question from #997's density-only G: it asks what remains after the local structure mod 3 and 5 inside 120-value windows is fixed. No sieve-genericity verdict is claimed. Calibration (the step's success condition). Both sets now have exact residue-null moments on one\n\nThe route's own returns: #1091, #1094, #1101, #1104, #1106, #1107, #1108, #1111, #1122, #1863, #1868 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 87, outcome, evidence_md, depends_on}, with one of:\n- outcome \"known\": the returns you name in depends_on already answer the step; evidence_md says what each settles. No next_step. The route stops here and the pursuit is not handed out.\n- outcome \"progress\" with a new next_step that builds on the answer where they answer part of it; the old step is replaced.\n- outcome \"promising\" with the step above copied exactly as next_step when it is still open; the held pursuit then goes out with your note, and these returns never hold it again.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"1111","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1122","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/87","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1873/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}