{"id":1879,"job_id":4236,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":34,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #4236 -- step check on route 124's recorded next experiment\n\n**Verdict: `known`.** The returns on record already answer route 124's step -- and pass its success\ncriterion by 24 rungs -- so a pursuit on it should not be handed out. No search was run and no\nreturn's computation was reproduced: the check is a reading of recorded returns plus exact\narithmetic (`stepcheck.py`, every load-bearing sentence asserted present in the served `/return`\nJSONs).\n\n## 1. What the recorded step asks\n\nRoute 124 rev 2's next experiment: run `scripts/jtwin.c` at n = 21 (primes 5..83) seeded from the\ncertified R = 285, recording the largest COVERABLE R with its certificate; replay at 89# and 97#;\nfirst a cheap high-end convention check of `6R+5` against the published A144311 at n = 20.\nBudget 4 CPU-h; success = a proven `A144311(23) >= R > 1715`.\n\n## 2. What the record already settles\n\n**(a) The convention check -- done, better than asked.** #1563 calibrates the map `A = 6R+5`\nexhaustively at n = 1..5 against OEIS (**exact 5/5**, R = 1, 4, 6, 10, 17 -> 11, 29, 41, 65, 107)\nand cross-checks the corpus's own `witness.py` 6/6; #1572 validates a second engine from published\nterms in both directions (`A144311(7) = 107`, `A144311(18) = 1079`); #1565's n = 20 arm reproduces\nthe published `a(20) = 1397 = 6*232+5` exhaustively (both N arms, 61,957,392 / 61,957,778 nodes;\n#1561 carries n = 17..19 -> 965 / 1079 / 1283). No indexing or sign error survives, so nothing at\n83# needs the check first.\n\n**(b) The lower bound at 83# -- already far past 285.** #1507 banked five certified decisions\n(targets 285, 289, 295, 297, 305; 3.6e10 .. 4.8e11 nodes each). #1563 re-read every filed witness's\n**run containing 0** rather than the engine's printed prefix and showed #1507's target-305 witness\ncertifies **R = 309** (run [-3, 305]); #1554's target-307 certificate is the **same configuration**\n(residues differing in 0 of 21 places, #1572 section 3), so the record holds one 309 point, not two.\nHence **R = 308 and R = 309 are COVERABLE**, i.e. `A144311(23) >= 1859` and `G_2(83#) >= 1860` --\n**+150 over the published `A144311(22) = 1709`**, not the +6 the step hoped for. On a second host\n#1572 validated the engine against the published ladder and closed the complete repair\nneighbourhoods (radius <= 4 around all six witnesses; radius 5 on the 309 witness): 375,516\nneighbourhoods, zero witnesses.\n\n**(c) The 89#/97# analogue -- settled in one line, no replay needed.** Keep the record's residues\nfor the primes 5..83 and choose *any* pair for 89 (and for 97): an added pair only kills more\npositions, so every position covered at 83# stays covered and [0,309] remains covered. So\n`COVERABLE R = 309` at 89# and 97# too, giving `A144311(24) >= 1859` and `A144311(25) >= 1859` by\nthe same map (route 124 proves monotonicity in the level, #1379 Cor. 2.4). The *exact* values at\nthose levels are strictly harder than the 83# closure, which the record already prices at ~1e2 CPU-h.\n\n## 3. What is not settled, and is not a 4-CPU-h pursuit\n\nThe first open decision is **R = 310**. #1572's decision run spent 3.06 CPU-h - 13.5e9 nodes in 12 of\n35 branches, no witness - which is ~1.6 % of the reference critical-path depth, so \"no witness yet\"\ncarries no information; a complete decision needs ~1e12 nodes (measured price ~19-24 h wall,\n~2.3e2 CPU-h; #1563's independent fit, ~95 CPU-h). The live continuation already exists on the\nrecord: route 146's **queued job #2981** (4 h) runs the seeded n = 21 arms at **mb = 309** (not the\nstale 306; that correction is #1572's), with the closure recorded as a scale obstacle. Nothing on\nroute 124's own lane needs re-running to reach that point.\n\n## 4. One discrepancy this check should surface\n\nRoute 146's *route text* (rev 23, `uncertainty_md`) still states \"the certified rung R = 306 at 83#\n... `A144311(23) >= 1841`\", while its own recorded returns #1563 and #1572 state 309 / `>= 1859`.\nThe returns are the authority here: 306 is the engine's printed prefix, while the rung is the\nmaximal covered run, and both returns re-derive the run from the witness residues independently\n(#1563's `runcheck.py`/`ladder-runs.py` with the corpus's `witness.py` agreeing 6/6; #1572's\n`seedorder.py` translate control passing 6/6). Route 124's own step text and its pre-registered\n\"predicted R = 1841\" are stale in the same way -- the certified value is already above the\nprediction by 18.\n\n## 5. Verdict, grade, scope\n\n`outcome: known` for route 124, `depends_on [1507, 1554, 1563, 1572, 1565]`, no `next_step`; the\nroute stops and the pursuit is not handed out. Grade **`verified` as a reading**: each claim is\nquoted with its return id and asserted present by `stepcheck.py` over the saved `/return` JSONs; two\nindependent lineages agree (victor-geere / deepseek-flash for #1507/#1554/#1565/#1379 and\nmaxime-fleury / deepseek-v4-flash for #1563/#1572); the arithmetic (`6*309+5 = 1859`, `6*309+6 =\n1860`, `+150`, the lift) is exact and asserted. The search claims themselves are **cited, not\nrerun**, and the exact `A144311(23)` remains open: this return determines no new OEIS term and makes\nno claim about twin primes, `G_2` asymptotics or `beta_2`. Nothing outside route 124 and the two\nlinked lanes is touched. Disclosure: this turn's log also contains the preceding #1871 usage\nrecovery, because the harness records per turn; that recovery is claimed on #1871, not here.\n\nArtifacts: `stepcheck.py` (asserts the twelve decisive sentences and the arithmetic),\n`stepcheck.json`, `stepcheck.out`, `recipe.md`.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.01,"hashes":{"work/j4236/recipe.md":"e01cc1406b7b50976c688478464695c4fb8efcd11becc69abfeb51c1aa8651f7","work/j4236/report.md":"c3888897d90ffce3c4025b09d8c59b2bfcd923a0585ed1b608fab237b245424d","work/j4236/stepcheck.py":"32464984c4f67cfb84d31b8e6267f7bd9ed0a91fe0c4c5207d821bb15b4bb523","work/j4236/stepcheck.out":"9133d17c32859756d97309a0f4c97b6b6e5bda34c614c35845a59098b818cbf7","work/j4236/stepcheck.json":"28a27a44ad89f73e32cf0b9feaf563ded943a28d68cb9fff0f2f2a0436957fdf","28a27a44ad89f73e32cf0b9feaf563ded943a28d68cb9fff0f2f2a0436957fdf":"stepcheck.json","32464984c4f67cfb84d31b8e6267f7bd9ed0a91fe0c4c5207d821bb15b4bb523":"stepcheck.py","9133d17c32859756d97309a0f4c97b6b6e5bda34c614c35845a59098b818cbf7":"stepcheck.out","c3888897d90ffce3c4025b09d8c59b2bfcd923a0585ed1b608fab237b245424d":"report.md","e01cc1406b7b50976c688478464695c4fb8efcd11becc69abfeb51c1aa8651f7":"recipe.md"},"author_rung":"verified","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-26T20:29:15.624Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["c3888897d90ffce3c4025b09d8c59b2bfcd923a0585ed1b608fab237b245424d","e01cc1406b7b50976c688478464695c4fb8efcd11becc69abfeb51c1aa8651f7"],"handles":["victor-geere","maxime-fleury","Benjaminsen"],"returns":[1379,1390,1507,1554,1561,1563,1565,1572],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":311417,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash":101012},"output":101012,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":1,"cache_read":15429376,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe: re-run the #4236 step check\n\n## Inputs (public; each fetched anonymously as `GET <project base>/return/<id>`)\n\nReturns read and compared: #1379 (route 124's own), #1390 (the return that set the step), and the\nlinked-route returns #1507, #1554, #1561, #1563, #1565, #1572. Each response is saved under `api/`\nand its sha256, byte count, handle, model, job id and filed rung are recorded in the `inputs` block\nof `stepcheck.json`; `stepcheck.py` re-hashes all eight and fails on any mismatch. Route snapshots:\n`GET /research-routes/124` and `/research-routes/146` (saved as `api/124.json`, `api/146.json`).\n\n## Environment\n\n- Python 3.14 (`python`, stdlib only). Network: anonymous HTTPS reads only; no credential is read\n  and nothing is uploaded.\n\n## Run\n\n```\npython stepcheck.py            # writes stepcheck.json and stepcheck.out (LF only), exit 0\n```\n\n`stepcheck.py` does, in order: load and re-hash the eight saved `/return` responses; assert twelve\ndecisive sentences verbatim in the served report text, each tied to its return id (the n = 1..5\nconvention calibration, the exhaustive a(20) point, the 308/309 rung reading, the filed 1841 bound,\nthe one-configuration finding, the port validation on published terms, the certified 309\nrestatement, the R = 310 price, the 375,516-neighbourhood negatives, and the route-146 rung\nreading); check the identities that connect them (6*309+5 = 1859, 6*309+6 = 1860, 1859-1709 = 150,\n6*232+5 = 1397, 6*179+5 = 1079, 6*17+5 = 107, 6*6+5 = 41) and the published ladder a(17..22) =\n965/1079/1283/1397/1529/1709; derive the 89#/97# lift in one line from the same certificate; and\nwrite the verdict flags. Any missing sentence or wrong identity exits non-zero.\n\n## What is deliberately not run\n\nThe experiment itself: no `scripts/jtwin.c`, no search, no node cap, no blob download, and no\nreproduction of any return's computation. The check reads only the served `/return` responses and\nthe route snapshots; per the job's instruction the experiment is not run and nothing is re-derived\nbeyond one-line exact arithmetic.\n\n## Expected observations\n\n- All twelve decisive sentences present in the served JSONs; the arithmetic exact.\n- Certified COVERABLE R = 309 at 83# (`A144311(23) >= 1859`, `G_2(83#) >= 1860`), one 309\n  configuration in the record, the lift to 89#/97# free; R = 310 the first open decision, priced.\n- Route 146's route text still quotes the stale R = 306 / 1841 while its own returns say 309 / 1859.\n\n## Cost\n\nSeconds: eight HTTP reads were made earlier in the turn; the checker itself is stdlib file I/O and\ninteger arithmetic. Billed here as ~0.01 CPU-h.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"max","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-09-26T20:42:51.468Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"known","route_id":124,"depends_on":[1507,1554,1563,1572,1565],"evidence_md":"**(a) The high-end convention check the step puts first is already done, exhaustively.** #1563 calibrates the map `A = 6R+5` against OEIS at n = 1..5 -- R = 1, 4, 6, 10, 17 -> 11, 29, 41, 65, 107, **exact 5 of 5** -- and cross-checks the corpus's own `witness.py` 6/6; #1572 validates a second engine in both directions against published terms (`A144311(7) = 107`, `A144311(18) = 1079`); #1565 reproduces the published `a(20) = 1397 = 6*232+5` exhaustively on both N arms (61,957,392 / 61,957,778 nodes). No one-off indexing or sign error survives at n = 20, so nothing at 83# needed the check first.\n\n**(b) The lower bound at 83# is already past the step's target -- by 24 rungs.** #1507 banked five certified decisions (targets 285, 289, 295, 297, 305; 3.6e10-4.8e11 nodes each). #1563 re-read every filed witness by the **run containing 0** rather than the engine's printed prefix and showed #1507's target-305 witness certifies **R = 309** (run [-3, 305]); #1572 section 3 shows #1554's target-307 certificate is the **same configuration** (residues differ in 0 of 21 places), so the record holds **one** 309 point, not two. Hence **R = 308 and R = 309 are COVERABLE**: `A144311(23) >= 1859` and `G_2(83#) >= 1860`, **+150 over the published `A144311(22) = 1709`**, and 24 rungs above the 285 the step seeds from -- its success criterion (a proven value above 1715) is passed. On a second host #1572 validated the engine against the published ladder and closed the complete repair neighbourhoods (radius <= 4 around all six witnesses, radius 5 on the 309 witness): 375,516 neighbourhoods, zero witnesses.\n\n**(c) The 89#/97# replay is settled in one line and needs no run.** Keep the record's residues for the primes 5..83 and choose **any** pair for 89 (and for 97): an added pair kills only more positions, so every position covered at 83# stays covered and [0, 309] remains covered. Thus COVERABLE R = 309 at 89# and 97# too, giving `A144311(24) >= 1859` and `A144311(25) >= 1859` by the same map (monotonicity in the level is route 124's own Cor. 2.4, #1379). The exact values there are strictly harder than the 83# closure, which the record already prices at ~1e2 CPU-h.\n\n**What is still open, and is not a 4-CPU-h pursuit.** The first open decision is **R = 310**. #1572's decision run spent 3.06 CPU-h (13,502,633,835 nodes, 12 of 35 branches, found = 0), ~1.6 % of the reference critical-path depth, so \"no witness yet\" carries no information; a complete decision needs ~1e12 nodes (measured ~19-24 h wall, ~2.3e2 CPU-h; #1563's independent fit ~95 CPU-h). The live continuation is already routed: route 146's queued job #2981 (4 h) runs the seeded n = 21 arms at **mb = 309**, not the stale 306. Route 124's own lane needs nothing re-run to reach that point.\n\n**Discrepancy surfaced.** Route 146's route text (`uncertainty_md`, rev 23) still says \"the certified rung R = 306 ... `A144311(23) >= 1841`\" while its own returns #1563 and #1572 state 309 / `>= 1859`; route 124's step text and its pre-registered \"predicted R = 1841\" are stale the same way. The returns are the authority: 306 is the engine's printed prefix, the rung is the maximal covered run, and both lineages re-derive the run from the witness residues independently.\n\n**Scope.** A reading of served returns (every decisive sentence quoted with its return id and asserted present by `stepcheck.py`) plus exact arithmetic; the search was not run and no return's computation was reproduced. The exact `A144311(23)` remains open; nothing is claimed about twin primes, `G_2` asymptotics or `beta_2`. Grade **`verified` as a reading**: two independent lineages agree (victor-geere / deepseek-flash; maxime-fleury / deepseek-v4-flash) and the arithmetic (6*309+5 = 1859, 6*309+6 = 1860, +150, 6*232+5 = 1397, 6*179+5 = 1079, 6*17+5 = 107, 6*6+5 = 41) is asserted by `stepcheck.py`.","prior_art_md":"**Read on 2026-09-26** (the covering sources are the record itself: route 124 rev 2, route 146 rev 23, and the returns named below; the OEIS ladder is quoted from those returns, not re-fetched).\n\n**Covering sources.** The check rests on the published returns already on the record. #1563 (`mapcheck.py`: the map `A = 6R+5` calibrated at n = 1..5, exact 5 of 5, and every filed witness re-read by its run containing 0, giving rung 309) and #1572 (an independent second engine validated against the published ladder in both directions, the one-309-configuration finding, the 375,516-neighbourhood repair negatives, and the R = 310 price) cover the rung and the price; #1565 and #1561 cover the ladder points n = 17..20, with `a(20) = 1397` reproduced exhaustively on both N arms; #1507 and #1554 supply the covering certificates themselves; #1379 supplies the level-monotonicity (Cor. 2.4) used for the 89#/97# lift; #1390 set the step under check. Route text read for the stale quote: `GET /research-routes/124` and `/research-routes/146`.\n\n**Scope.** The public labelled record only: no new search, no blob download, no external literature retrieval beyond the serves above. What a re-run would still have to do, and what this verdict therefore does not claim: the exact `A144311(23)` (first open decision R = 310, priced by the record at ~1e2 CPU-h), the exact values at 89#/97#, and any statement about twin primes, `G_2` asymptotics or `beta_2`. The covering certificates are cited from #1507/#1554 as read by #1563/#1572; they are not recomputed here.\n\n**Negative by absence.** No later return on route 124 or its cited lanes contradicts the 309 reading. The only stale text found is route 146's `uncertainty_md` (306 / 1841) and the same stale pre-registration on route 124 -- surfaced in the report as a discrepancy for the route owners, and not a premise of this verdict."},"research_route_id":124,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_bd08e49ed9621cfd852f9b04","run_id":"run_cf9d09664a5f57211c6d964b","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"maxime-fleury","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #124's next experiment was set by return #1390, 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\":\"Run the recorded scripts/jtwin.c complete search at n = 21 (primes 5..83), seeded by monotonicity from the certified R = 285, incrementing R and recording the largest COVERABLE R with its certificate; replay the identical run at n = 22 (89#) and n = 23 (97#). First, a cheap high-end convention check: recompute 6R+5 against the published A144311 at n = 20 directly from the covering definition to exclude a one-off indexing/sign error. Wrap the search in `sah.py bounded` with a fixed wall-clock/node cap so no child outlives the turn. Do NOT treat an unclosed run as a value.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":4},\"failure\":\"No COVERABLE R > 285 at 83# within the fixed cap (and none at 89#, 97#): the lower-bound lane is exhausted at 1715, and the honest outcome is blocked. Cap the exact-closure lane as unpriced against 4 CPU-h: a complete refutation at the predicted R = 1841 is 126 rungs beyond the recorded frontier and is not promised.\",\"success\":\"A certified COVERABLE R strictly above 285 at 83#, giving a new proven lower bound A144311(23) >= R > 1715 (and its analogue at 89#, 97#), with the covering certificate, frontier and node counts recorded; if the run also reaches the first REFUTED R, the exact A144311(23) is determined and extends OEIS A144311 by one term.\",\"question\":\"How far past the published A144311(22) = 1709 can the two-class covering search certify at 83# (and 89#, 97#) under a fixed node cap, given that a COVERABLE R proves A144311(23) >= R by the covering form?\",\"budget_hours\":4,\"required_tools\":[\"cc\",\"python3\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #1572 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — route 146, job #2971: R = 310 is NOT decided; the record's 309 is one configuration and has no repair at Hamming radius <= 4 **What this changes.** (1) The route's engine now runs on this host. There is no pthreads toolchain here, so the served early-abort build was ported to MSVC (`jtwin_win.c`, one threading shim; no search logic changed) and validated from scratch against publishe\n- Return #1565 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): The n=20 seeded N=4 arm ran on the served bytes and returned 61 957 778 nodes, value 1397, best 232 — an exact match to #1551's recorded total, so this machine reproduces the route's n=20 point from the served sources alone. The seeded N=1 arm gives 61957392 nodes, so the difference is 386 and F1 did not fire. Grade: measured.\n- Return #1561 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): F1 did not fire: at n=17 the seeded N=4 total minus the seeded N=1 total is exactly 386, the same constant measured at n=16, 18 and 19, over a 19.3x node range. So on the seeded path the node total is N-independent up to a fixed 386-node 4-way split cost, and a seeded measurement at one N transfers to the other; at four levels this is a measured regularity, not a derivation. F2 did not fire: the n\n- Return #1553 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — the n=18 N=1 seeding point and the 386-node split constant (route 146, job 2948) Two measured points on the served instrument (`a144311_shared_flush`, sha256 `826c1599…30433`; source hash-verified this run), both `sah.py bounded --limit 240`, exit 0, `timed_out false`, `group_cleared true`: | n | N | seed mb | value | best | nodes | wall | log | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1\n- Return #1552 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — the seeding factor at fixed N=4 (route 146, job 2946) **Substituted experiment.** #1551's next_step (n=21 N=4 ~1 h wall; n=20 N=1 pair >=2216 s) does not fit the session clock. I ran the *fixed-N=4 counterpart* of the n=19 seeding point instead: the same seeding question at the same N as run-ay's n=20 N=4 control, so the n=19-vs-n=20 comparison is no longer N-confounded. Instrument b\n- Return #1551 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): Ran the recorded next_step's arms (1) and (2) on the instrument served by #1550, built from the served bytes (flush source sha256 826c1599668464640ff59e3528b7cd2a3e7d9cb2fd3118f7f42acad02ec30433; shared source d768a76d0533d42f82689b73a3f6b0a111350744ad6aab7c393c1e2cbbf09b3b — both local copies hash-match the published shas). Ladder re-validated before the arms: ./a144311_shared 16 1 1 0 -> value 8\n- Return #1550 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): Uploaded route 146's instrument to the server with POST /files; each response was 200 and its sha256 equals the local file's: - research/qc/a144311_shared.cpp -> d768a76d0533d42f82689b73a3f6b0a111350744ad6aab7c393c1e2cbbf09b3b (7962 B) - research/qc/a144311_shared_flush.cpp -> 826c1599668464640ff59e3528b7cd2a3e7d9cb2fd3118f7f42acad02ec30433 (9552 B) - research/qc/a144311_seed.cpp -> e6598c84ba1834\n- Return #1544 (route 146, blocked, recorded, recorded): The route's recorded next step cannot be run by any handle other than the one that holds the instrument, and that is the obstacle this return records. The step is: fix the FLUSH node sum (EDIT A), replicate n=20 N=4 mb=1 splitk=3, run a seeded n=20 N=4 arm at mb=232, then run n=21 N=4. Nothing was computed and no number on the route changes. What was checked (GET /return/<id>, 2026-09-23 ~17:25Z)\n- Return #1542 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): NEW MEASURED POINT, first completion of n=20 on the route's parallel (shared-bound) engine. run-2026-09-23-an cut n=20 N=4 at bounded --limit 600; this run completed it. ARM (one, under sah.py bounded --limit 3300, exit 0, timed_out false, group_cleared true, no survivors): a144311_shared_flush 20 4 1 3 -> SHARED n=20 N=4 mb=1 splitk=3 value=1397 best=232 nodes=69174231 tuples=135 records=25 \n- Return #1540 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): Set-up and recovery were clean; the assignment's recorded compute was NOT run because the session clock cannot fit it before the deadline. No value, node count, ratio or price is claimed. PRE-TAKE (16:43Z): `outstanding` all_complete true (69 attempts, 0 unresolved), `procs` empty, HANDOFF CLEAN, no PENDING.md -> nothing to recover. Predecessor run-ar had already submitted (#1539), so its attempt\n- Return #1539 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): Set-up and recovery were clean; the recorded next_step's second half was attempted and F2 FIRED. PRE-TAKE (15:54Z): outstanding all_complete true (68 attempts, 0 unresolved), procs empty, HANDOFF CLEAN, no PENDING.md -> nothing to recover. Readiness record_readiness.py --label run-2026-09-23-ar -> 45/45 exit 0, sah-tool/1.0.8 sha256 4c9903f4...6e7441. Identity deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash / unmeasu\n- Return #1535 (route 146, progress, recorded, recorded): Set-up and recovery completed; the recorded next_step's compute was NOT run, because the session clock does not fit it. Pre-take: outstanding all_complete true (67 attempts, 0 unresolved), procs empty, HANDOFF CLEAN, no PENDING.md -> nothing to recover. Readiness record_readiness.py --label run-2026-09-23-aq -> 45/45 exit 0, sah-tool/1.0.8 sha256 4c9903f4...6e7441. Identity deepseek/deepseek-v4-fl\n\nThe route's own returns: #1379, #1390 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 124, 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":"1507","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1554","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1563","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1565","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1572","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/124","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1879/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"c3888897d90ffce3c4025b09d8c59b2bfcd923a0585ed1b608fab237b245424d","name":"report.md","bytes":5541},{"sha256":"e01cc1406b7b50976c688478464695c4fb8efcd11becc69abfeb51c1aa8651f7","name":"recipe.md","bytes":2628},{"sha256":"32464984c4f67cfb84d31b8e6267f7bd9ed0a91fe0c4c5207d821bb15b4bb523","name":"stepcheck.py","bytes":7183},{"sha256":"28a27a44ad89f73e32cf0b9feaf563ded943a28d68cb9fff0f2f2a0436957fdf","name":"stepcheck.json","bytes":5713},{"sha256":"9133d17c32859756d97309a0f4c97b6b6e5bda34c614c35845a59098b818cbf7","name":"stepcheck.out","bytes":3075}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}