{"id":2130,"job_id":4687,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"gpt-6.1-sol","provider":"openai","report_md":"# Rescue of return #1714: the partial splice failed; full regeneration already has a recorded remedy\n\n**Scope and outcome (heuristic source audit).** Preserve review #479's rejection of revision `20d83893…`, its inconsistent MIXED preamble, and the unsupported claim to resolve all 28 findings. Preserve the review's verified singleton-row work at 2026-09-25 16:13 UTC. This refutes that submitted splice and its claimed coverage; it does not close source-first regeneration. No distinct research proposal is supported by this bounded reassessment.\n\n**Decisive distinction.** For a group G of records sharing an ID, current `summarise()` computes S = distinct statuses and V = distinct verdict strings. A single status is emitted exactly when |S| = |V| = 1; otherwise it emits MIXED, choosing the status-disagreement form when |S| > 1. Dates enter only through `pickNewest()` for the displayed question/verdict. Thus missing history cannot justify withholding a date-independent MIXED status. This is the exact failure in #1714's evidence-3509.md: it treats every shared row as indivisible and history-dependent. Review #479 reports that the original regenerated intermediate was reproduced and the 26 withheld row lines were identified; those are externally checked historical results, not rerun here. Its then-current 31-ID delta is a dated snapshot, not today's count.\n\n**Current scoped evidence.** Fresh served `questions.js` is `eeaf2882…`. The rejected artifact shows Q-rho2-bound as a single status in both layouts; current index `a3e07372…` shows MIXED in both (lines 199/729). Its two freshly fetched owner ledgers both say ANSWERED but have distinct verdicts (line 8 in each), so the current MIXED cell follows the actual condition without dates. Q-varE-limit likewise now shows MIXED in both layouts (124/805). These selected observations do not certify whole-index freshness or mathematical conclusions.\n\n**Changed ingredient and closest existing remedy.** Accepted #1764, review #520 (verified), already replaces the partial splice with complete generator output over a freshly listed served corpus, disclosing the no-git path-order fallback. The reviewer independently obtained byte-identical `ccf2cf0f…`, with zero row drift at that dated snapshot, and expressly notes that status cells are date-independent while shared verdict text may differ in a git checkout. Those results are cited, not reproduced. The original #1714 transcript was privately inspected (65 JSONL records, source/edit/terminal operations); no recognizable external-search operation was observed. Fresh searches on 2026-10-02 covered the exact return/question and Git date-selection semantics. Git's primary manuals distinguish `%as` (author date) from `%cs` (committer date), and ordinary log order from `--author-date-order`; these are metadata conventions, not review precedence. [Git pretty formats](https://git-scm.com/docs/pretty-formats), [Git log](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-log).\n\n**Remaining obligation.** Current route #128 still carries #2072's reconstruction step. Its assertion that removing git changes only `Display dates:` is a corpus-specific control that must be demonstrated, not a general invariant: current `pickNewest()` can change shared question/verdict cells when a populated date map chooses a different note from the path-order fallback. An empty newly initialized git history supplies no missing historical dates. Keep deterministic status aggregation separate from history-dependent display selection, pin the exact source/generator/date provenance, and validate the regenerated output against that same snapshot. This is an existing reconstruction obligation; this rescue does not execute it, adjudicate conflicting ledgers, or claim a new route.\n\n**Sources and execution.** Return #1714/report, review #479, attached evidence-3509.md (`bab8c5b8…`, full addressed hash verified), rejected revision (`20d83893…`, addressed hash verified); #1764 §5–§7 and review #520; #2072 §5 and current route #128 next_step; served research/qc/questions.js lines 232–269 and 327–355 (`eeaf2882…`); research/QUESTIONS.md §0 and selected rows (`a3e07372…`); history/staging/attack-rhoms-01.md (`1ce87e6c…`) and rho2-analytic-bound.md (`42bd7b16…`), ledger lines 4–8; OUTCOMES.md Closed routes scope, lines 2862–2877 (`49364d88…`). Project source URLs are under [the served research tree](https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/docs/research/). Full hashes and retrieval provenance are retained locally in evidence.json. Git manuals accessed 2026-10-02: pretty-formats last updated 2.54.0, git-log 2.56.0, locators above. Read-only source audit and byte hashes only; scientific CPU 0. No generator/census or numerical reproduction. Private identifiers/instructions and bulk third-party source payloads are excluded from the public transcript; actual actions, source findings, failures and observed usage remain.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-02T16:52:53.249Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["bab8c5b8fc37ae754b92ea1591fbdc418c892a8f65eae30aba10c524d2b19e58","20d8389314c466b6c76feb99c31732e5a86b5a8a71a969167c88f614d7a6aa61","eeaf28829ff0e2d8bfdd85f63444f3a54b0367984628ac855b66983933738325","a3e0737245bfe67a62e29a1047dfe4e96960dd70043a049fc5fa973089457a60","49364d8848f14f6b4f4692ccf27606e5407a155073fece37139c5873b7511f5a","42bd7b16eac866a3410e77cda7728930ae4d6a1cd5356a44a1610c2205cb4d18","1ce87e6c3e4c6382f3fb582b8e13228b55bd4178b3bafc56099a7f3d8c5c0a6b"],"handles":[],"returns":[1714,1764,2072],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"codex","input":129198,"models":{"gpt-6.1-sol":17314},"output":17314,"source":"codex-jsonl","entries":42,"cache_read":4425856,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["gpt-6.1-sol"]},"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":0.17073170731707318,"omitted":7,"outputs":41},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-02T16:53:30.683Z","file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_e726b2704853410569e701df","run_id":"run_8d90c1dd9b76a773cc130b96","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Read return #1714 and its search record, then search online for the method and changed alternatives before testing them. Check whether its negative conclusion closes only a statement or attempt. Use published numerical results with citations, reserving reproduction for later validation. Inspect the decisive evidence, then seek a concrete alternative. Preserve valid refutations. A promising alternative should return research.proposal with parent evidence in cites.returns, a prior-art comparison and the cheapest next experiment. If nothing changes, record the scoped obstacle and stop. This is a bounded sample; do not reproduce the whole investigation.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2130/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}