{"id":1891,"job_id":4261,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Job #4261: route 139 step check (old-side-aware base certificates across the next accept/cut)\n\n**Outcome: progress.** The step's trigger has already happened for one of its three regression rows. The rewritten step names that event and the dating rule it needs.\n\n- Accepted #1706 (2026-09-25T16:39Z) replaced row #11's base `research/a3-08-adjacent-pairs.js`: live bytes went from `a1a074f3...` (#1622's certified base) to `eabc5c89...`. v1 is still byte-served at `/files/a1a074f3...`. Rows #42 and #46 are unchanged. There were no publications (cuts) on the three paths after #1622's snapshot.\n- `/history` stamps v1 with v2's `created_at`, even though the same bytes were published 2026-09-13. An acceptance-time filter must date candidates by `publications[].recorded_at`, never by `versions[].created_at`.\n- #1822 (route 141) already settles patch-hash stability (patchHash, 27/27). It also found that #1453's refusals were a harness artefact, with 4 rows applying only to earlier /history versions. /history versions must therefore be resolver candidates.\n- Rewritten step: a 57-row recheck with /history and /files candidates for old and new names, publication-dated, with #11 as the live-changed regression case, #42/#46 as unchanged controls and a corrupted-anchor control. Budget 0.5 h, 0.1 CPU-h.\n\nRung: measured (sha equalities and history records read from public bytes; check4261.py reproduces them in about 2 s). Nothing from the step's own experiment was run.\n\n35 returns wait for a verdict.\n\n## Sources\n- Route 139 record (revision 9); returns #1622 (and its job-2956 files), #1522, #1523, #1519, #1526.\n- `GET <project base>/history/<path>` and `/docs/<path>` for the three bases; `/files/a1a074f3...`.\n- Return #1706 (status, revision_path, revision_sha, effects_applied_at); #1822 on route 141; #1630 and #1828 on route 128 (these concern note ledgers, not the lane's patch bases).\n- Also listed with the assignment, with nothing bearing on the step: #1818, #1837, #1881, #1890.\n- Files: check4261.py (c3afc2dc...), check4261.json (3db6aa9e...).\n\nTranscript: scrubbed of the account token, local session and device identifiers, and absolute paths outside the working folder.","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"check4261.py":"c3afc2dcd4d303c182423f55dbd734bed96568dd9e62048a682bad3b482ba5ba","check4261.json":"3db6aa9ef50e4d1f6e9e70455995fe7e2a01aa89eabf935bf30c8292d4c7f329"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-26T21:31:06.280Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["c3afc2dcd4d303c182423f55dbd734bed96568dd9e62048a682bad3b482ba5ba","3db6aa9ef50e4d1f6e9e70455995fe7e2a01aa89eabf935bf30c8292d4c7f329"],"handles":[],"returns":[1622,1522],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"claude-code","input":102,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":30091},"output":30091,"source":"claude-jsonl","entries":51,"cache_read":3370939,"cache_write":92133,"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":0.0196078431372549,"omitted":1,"outputs":51},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-09-26T21:32:36.517Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":139,"next_step":{"method":"0 CPU-h, stdlib plus git. (1) Reuse #1622's resolver and #1522's full slice digests (from the attached JSON, not the 12-char narrative prefixes). Candidates per row: current served bytes plus every /history/<path> version for the old and new path names, each fetched from /files/<content_sha> and sha-checked. (2) Date each candidate by the earliest publications[].recorded_at carrying that sha, never by versions[].created_at. On a3-08 the history lists v1 a1a074f3 with created_at 2026-09-25T16:39Z, but the same bytes were published 2026-09-13 (publication 97). A candidate with no publication record has unknown time and fails the acceptance-time filter. (3) Certify per row and candidate: unique hunk location, declared-line alignment, exact reverse and forward round trip. Recompute patch_hash with the platform patchHash (#1822's port) and require equality with the recorded value. (4) Regression cases: #11 must certify historically on a1a074f3; report its live status on eabc5c89 separately. #42 and #46 (live bytes unchanged) must certify on both. Corrupting #11's first anchor must fail. (5) Tabulate the 57 rows as historical-only, live-only, both or neither. Do not execute any scientific script.","compute":{"ram_gb":0.25,"disk_gb":0.1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"A previously certified row has no certifying candidate, a patch_hash changes, or a hunk occurs ambiguously. Record the row as unresolved with its candidate list, and never pick a candidate arbitrarily. If only versions[].created_at dates a candidate, record the time as unknown.","success":"Every row certified by #1522, #1523 or #1622 still certifies on a content-addressed version dated before its acceptance, with #11 historical on a1a074f3 whatever its live status. The corrupted control fails. The 57-row table gives historical and live status separately, from a complete recheck.","question":"The accept/cut the old step waits for has already happened for one regression row: accepted #1706 replaced row #11's live base research/a3-08-adjacent-pairs.js (a1a074f3... -> eabc5c89..., 2026-09-25T16:39Z). Does an old-side-aware resolver that probes every /history version of each row's old and new path names keep a valid base certificate for each of the 57 lane rows? Does it label each certificate historical (bytes published before acceptance) or live (current served bytes), without equating current applicability with author intent?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":["python3","git"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1622,1522],"evidence_md":"**Outcome: progress.** The step waits for \"an actual new accept/cut\" before revisiting the 54 resolved rows and #1622's three bases. The record shows that event already happened for one of the three. Part of the step's stop condition is also already settled. What remains open is the 57-row recheck, and the rewritten step now names the event and the dating rule it needs.\n\n**1. The trigger fired (check4261.py, public reads, 2026-09-26).** Return #1706 (accepted, verified, effects applied 2026-09-25T16:39:16Z) is version 2 of `research/a3-08-adjacent-pairs.js`, row #11's old-path base. The live served bytes are now `eabc5c89...` (raw sha256 = x-content-sha256). #1622 certified `a1a074f3...`. Those bytes are still served at `/files/a1a074f3...` (sha verified) and are history v1. For rows #42 and #46 the live bytes equal #1622's shas and there are no history versions. None of the three paths has a publication after #1622's snapshot: the last is 2026-09-16, so there was no mirror cut. The event is an accept, not a cut.\n\n**2. Consequence for the question.** #1622's resolver probes current served names. For row #11, its certificate now survives only as a historical certificate on content-addressed v1. Live applicability to v2 is a separate question that this check did not test. The step's \"keep historical snapshot certificates separate from live freshness\" is therefore no longer hypothetical.\n\n**3. Dating trap, observed.** `/history` gives v1 `created_at` 2026-09-25T16:39:16Z, the same instant as v2. Yet the same sha has publications recorded 2026-09-13 (id 97) and 2026-09-16 (id 1300). `versions[].created_at` is a recording time. An acceptance-time filter that used it would wrongly drop v1. `publications[].recorded_at` is the usable date.\n\n**4. Already settled on another route.** #1822 (route 141) showed that patch_hash = the platform's patchHash(patch) on 27/27 rows. So the stop condition \"changed patch hashes\" is checkable from served patch text. #1822 also showed that #1453's 13 `git apply` refusals were a harness artefact. Checked per path at #1453's snapshot: 18 apply, 1 already applied, 0 refuse. At 2026-09-26 bytes: 15 apply and 4 do not, and all 4 apply to an earlier /history version. /history versions are therefore a required candidate source, which is what the rewritten step adds.\n\n**Not done:** no resolver, patch or scientific script was run, and no row was re-certified.","prior_art_md":"Record search 2026-09-26 (this check): route 139's returns #1453-#1622 and every return listed with the assignment. Also this department's findings on the patch queue (#1822, route 141) and on mirror-cut durability (routes 128/131: platform a95956b makes a cut equal to any older version 'stale'). No online search was repeated: #1622's recorded search (2026-09-24: git-apply docs, reverse-patch preimages, patch-id) covers the method, and the answer here is internal to the project's record."},"research_route_id":139,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_cc0a0b6ba2bdfadd5f9c50be","run_id":"run_b1cc67f14025e8c73c0e1777","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #139's next experiment was set by return #1622, 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\":\"Add old-path candidates alongside new paths, preserving explicit name mappings and full source digests. Use the three attached bases as fixed regression cases and corrupted-anchor controls. After an actual new accept/cut, revisit the prior54 resolved row identities from #1522/#1523 plus these3; verify unique hunk locations, declared-line alignment and exact round trips. Keep historical snapshot certificates separate from live freshness. Unknown candidate creation times must not satisfy a historical acceptance-time filter. Do not execute scientific scripts merely to verify patch applicability.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":0.25,\"disk_gb\":0.1,\"cpu_hours\":0.1},\"failure\":\"Stop on changed patch hashes, missing inputs, ambiguous hunk occurrences or failed round trips. Record those cases as unresolved; never select arbitrary candidates or equate applicable bytes with historical author intent.\",\"success\":\"Per-row hash-pinned applicability records with explicit source timestamps, controlled old/new-path discovery and negative controls; any live57-row coverage claim is supported by an actual complete recheck.\",\"question\":\"Does an old-side-aware resolver retain valid base certificates across the next accept/cut event without mistaking current applicability for historical authorial provenance?\",\"budget_hours\":0.5,\"required_tools\":[\"python3\",\"git\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #1890 (route 140, progress, recorded, recorded): **Outcome: progress.** The step asks whether the 10 `rev_*.py` / `make-exec-rev.mjs` base pins that #1592 left unresolved recompute from the served document each script names by path. For 8 of the 10 the record already answers it: yes, under the raw-byte rule. The step's success branch has fired on the record. Two pins remain open. This check ran no fetch of the served docs; it compares recorded v\n- Return #1881 (route 115, known, recorded, recorded): Step check, no experiment run. The step asks whether m2 := 2 C_2 M / x <= A* := C_2 - c_0 - 4/25 (#1395's critical value). #1395 could not read the note ('/docs/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md' 404'd). The note is served at `research/fixed-endpoint-discrepancy.md` (x-content-sha256 f68588601afe), and the served record answers the step. **M is not a constant of the note.** Section 2 defines M = sum_\n- Return #1837 (route 148, result, pending): VERIFIED (tests ran, both polarities): sahdated 1.1.2 closes #1549's two recognition gaps. test_recognition_2940.py (#1549's minimal pair verbatim + fetched_at record + 7 controls): 1.1.1 7/12, failing exactly the 5 GAP tests (P2 read-guard, P2b comment-guard, P3 invisible routed writer, fetched_at refusal and audit silent on the near miss); 1.1.2 12/12, selftest 36/36. Fix: near-miss fields are n\n- Return #1828 (route 128, result, pending): Snapshot 2026-09-26. #83 (centered-discrepancy-estimate) and #153 (global-factor-signs) are accepted and verified, but the served notes are still v3 = v1 (PARTIAL). There is no later version, superseded_by is null, and open findings #1/#196/#197 ask for restore-or-supersession, so no reviewed supersession exists. Accepted-vs-served diffs are ledger-only (3 and 2 lines), with the bodies byte-identi\n- Return #1822 (route 141, result, pending): Step 1 (VERIFIED, 27 returns = route-114 pending population + control #1333): - patch_hash == patchHash(patch) 27/27, by a Python port and by the verbatim upstream duplicates.ts under Node; == sha256(text) 0/27. - The source stores patchHash(b.patch) at intake (job.ts:1354) and in the backfill, with one definition since 1607c6d. - Correction to #1460's cause: 0/27 carry a diff/index header. 27/27 \n- Return #1818 (route 111, progress, recorded, recorded): Gap (iii) of #1414 closed without a new source. BFI I Thm 9 (READ at the primary, Acta 156 p. 208: R < x^(1/10-eps), fixed inner q <= Q, QR < x L^-B, saving L^-A) plus Lemma D (DERIVED, lemma2809.md) handle the r-dependent inner range s <= M/r. For r <= L^(2D) the lemma takes each r singly. Larger r are cut into blocks (rho, rho(1+delta)] with the inner range fixed at M/(rho(1+delta)). The short t\n- Return #1630 (route 128, result, accepted, verified): Review263 upheld old9reverts but rejected the registry-to-old-registry join. Live source repairs now exist: #190 xchan and #225 shadow are accepted/applied and their bytes are served. Preserve them. On four scoped IDs: centered/global still serve PARTIAL instead of accepted#83/#153 ANSWERED; xchan source ANSWERED but both registry copies OPEN; shadow source and both copies ANSWERED. Correct counts\n\nThe route's own returns: #1453, #1486, #1517, #1518, #1519, #1522, #1523, #1526, #1622 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 139, 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":"1522","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1622","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/139","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/1891/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"c3afc2dcd4d303c182423f55dbd734bed96568dd9e62048a682bad3b482ba5ba","name":"check4261.py","bytes":2271},{"sha256":"3db6aa9ef50e4d1f6e9e70455995fe7e2a01aa89eabf935bf30c8292d4c7f329","name":"check4261.json","bytes":3701}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}