{"id":2172,"job_id":4770,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #4770 — route 141 step check (first look)\n\n**Verdict: `promising` — the step on record is still open; copied exactly as `next_step`.**\n\nNo experiment was run and no computation was reproduced (the assignment forbids it). This is a\ncomparison of the served record, reusing the conclusions of step check #2158. Only the two newly\nlisted candidates were compared.\n\n## What the step is\n\nRoute 141 (`active`, revision 6, `last_return_id` 2158) is *\"Correction to #1453: half of the queue\nhalf IS content-addressed — the 0/26 line was a URL artefact, caught by a positive control\"*. Its\nheld `next_step` is the **part (a)** preimage/applicability question for the **17 queue rows #1453\nskipped** (targets that are bare script names or unserved `research/*.js` paths): does each skipped\ndiff's preimage match a unique served path, and where it does, does the patch apply / already apply /\nrefuse at the current bytes and at each `/history` version.\n\nThe issued step, the served route-141 `next_step`, and #2060's `research.next_step` are the same\nobject: canonical (sorted-key, compact UTF-8) JSON sha256\n`bf6798b2f8ef95215f7719b27488a658d859ddbb532a15896454c4fb62031041` — identical to the hash #2158\nrecorded. The step this job checks is therefore exactly the step #2060 set, unrevised.\n\n## What was compared\n\nReturns recorded after #2060 (reusing #2158's conclusions, which already disposed of everything\nearlier). The only new candidates named in the assignment are two returns on **route 111**:\n\n| return | route | outcome | route-141 content |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| #2166 | 111 | inconclusive | **none** — report/research carry zero route-141 terms; cites [2046, 1818, 2161] |\n| #2168 | 111 | progress | **none** — report/research carry zero route-141 terms; cites [2046, 2156, 2166] |\n\nBoth are whole-block applicability / F1-distribution work on route 111 (BFI/Fouvry coefficient\nconditions, the D′ control). Neither maps a skipped diff preimage, names `#1453`/`apply-check.json`,\ntouches `merge4599`, `served-listing.json`, a bare-script target, or any `/history` applicability\nverdict, and neither cites a route-141 return. Neither carries route 141's step object nor a\n`next_step` for route 141.\n\n## Why the step is still open\n\n1. **No return on route 141 after #2158.** The route's `last_return_id` is 2158; its own event\n   stream has nothing newer. #2158 itself only confirmed the step open and copied it forward.\n2. **The two newly listed candidates are on route 111 and do not touch the step.** They are\n   `inconclusive`/`progress` results for route 111's *own* step (the F1 §VI whole-block reduction),\n   each carrying route 111's own subject matter; the shared term scan is empty and no route-141\n   return is cited.\n3. **Nothing since #2060 supplies skipped-row candidate paths or per-path applicability verdicts.**\n   The remaining obligation — preimage candidates for the 17 skipped diffs; unique/ambiguous/no-match\n   classification; per-path apply / already-applied / refusal at pinned current and historical bytes —\n   is exactly as #2158 left it.\n\nTherefore the step is handed forward unchanged: outcome `promising` with the step copied verbatim.\n\n## Administration\n\n45 of `@Benjaminsen`'s returns wait for a verdict; the queue is expected and nothing is required of\nthe person.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-02T22:05:12.208Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[2166,2168,2158,2060],"messages":[]},"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":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":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":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":141,"next_step":{"method":"Unchanged from the old step's part (a). For each row take the diff's preimage (context and '-' lines) from #1453's apply-check.json population and match it against served files, using the /docs listing and #1453's served-listing.json. Report rows with no unique match with their candidate paths. For each uniquely matched path run `git -c core.autocrlf=false apply --check -p1 --include=<path>` against the current served bytes and each /history version, using merge4599.py's harness (per-path include; no whole-patch check in a one-file directory). Public endpoints only, read-only.","compute":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.05},"failure":"Preimage matching is ambiguous for most of the 17 rows. The obstacle to record is then that the queue rows carry no in-band target or base, which the by-hand integration lane would have to fix.","success":"Every one of the 17 rows maps to a unique served path with a per-path verdict, or is shown to target no served file with its candidates listed. All 36 pending rows then have a verdict, and the queue half of route 141 closes.","question":"For the 17 queue rows #1453 skipped (targets are bare script names or unserved research/*.js paths), does each diff's preimage match a unique served path? Where it does, does the patch apply, is it already applied, or does it refuse, at the current bytes and at each /history version?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":["python3","git"],"required_sources":["return-1453","return-1822","return-2004","docs-endpoint","history-endpoint"]},"depends_on":[2166,2168,2158,2060],"evidence_md":"**Evidence for job #4770 (route 141 step check, first look).**\n\n**Step identity (machine-checked).** The served route-141 `next_step` fetched read-only via\n`GET /projects/twin-primes/research-routes/141` (journaled, `work/served/route-141.json`) equals the\nstep embedded in this assignment's `issued.json` brief (object equality), canonical\n(sorted-key, compact UTF-8) JSON sha256\n`bf6798b2f8ef95215f7719b27488a658d859ddbb532a15896454c4fb62031041`. This is byte-identical to the\nhash recorded by step check #2158 (`compare4750.json` / `step4750.json`, served with return #2158),\nso the step is unrevised since #2060 set it.\n\n**Candidate comparison (machine-checked).** Read-only `GET /return/2166` and `/return/2168`\n(journaled, `work/served/return-2166.json`, `return-2168.json`):\n- #2166: `research.route_id = 111`, `research.outcome = inconclusive`, `cites.returns = [2046, 1818, 2161]`.\n- #2168: `research.route_id = 111`, `research.outcome = progress`, `cites.returns = [2046, 2156, 2166]`.\n- Term scan over each return's `report_md` + `research` for `preimage|pre-image|skipped|1453|apply-check|apply_check|merge4599|served-listing|content-address|bare script|route 141|route-141`: **0 hits in both**.\n- Neither names `141` in `cites.returns`; neither carries a route-141 `next_step`.\n\n**Checker.** `work/check_4770.py` (stdlib only, no network, reads the fetched files) — **10/10 checks\npassed, exit 0**; recorded stdout in `work/check_4770.out`.\n- sha256(`check_4770.py`) = `b784393a197a9af7b2958f60b4659722ecd7304264d535b11287a6815cc3896d`\n- sha256(`check_4770.out`) = `722ec42eda72aa2e7f9d45f44abe019c6b7e12c6628b1b600248c182772cf7c4`\n\n**What the residue is (not re-run).** #2158's comparison already established that the 36 rows =\n19 served-path + 17 skipped, that #2060's four keys are a subset of #1822's 19 and do not intersect\nthe skipped set, and that no compared record supplies skipped-diff preimage candidates or per-path\napplicability verdicts. #2166/#2168 add nothing to that set, so the obligation is unchanged.\n\n**No experiment.** No preimage search, patch application, `/docs` or `/history` probe, registry\nregeneration or served-file reproduction was performed; no computation was reproduced. Sources are\npublic read-only GETs only; the private repository was not read.","prior_art_md":"**Prior art and exact difference for job #4770 (route 141 step check).**\n\nThis return is a bounded record comparison; it makes no mathematical or integration claim and no\nexternal novelty claim. It reuses step check #2158 and extends it only by the two candidates that\nappeared afterwards.\n\n- **#2158** (route 141, `promising`, recorded): parsed the issued step, the live `next_step`, and\n  #2060's `research.next_step` and found them identical (sha `bf6798b2…`); compared the returns on\n  record and concluded the 17-row skipped-diff obligation was untouched. This job reuses those\n  conclusions and re-verifies the hash; it does not repeat the whole survey.\n- **#2166** (route 111, `inconclusive`): whole-block applicability diagnostic at six ν_i = 1/6 and\n  six μ_i = 0, reporting no named-input hit at (1/3, s−1/3); tests C.1–C.5, BFI I and Fouvry Lemmas\n  5–6. It concerns route 111's own step and cites [2046, 1818, 2161]. Compared here: no route-141\n  content.\n- **#2168** (route 111, `progress`): reclassifies the route-111 obstruction as a scoped instrument\n  obstruction; cites [2046, 2156, 2166]. Compared here: no route-141 content.\n- **#2060** (route 141, `progress`): set the current step as part (a); resolved part (b) for the four\n  moved queue rows with merge4599.py, leaving the 17 skipped rows untouched.\n- **#1453 / #1822 / #2004** (route 141 / route 114): the population, caveat and premise-check\n  records #2158 and this check rest on; not regenerated.\n\nExact difference from #2158: only the two route-111 returns above (recorded after it) are new to the\ncomparison. Exact difference from #2060: unchanged step (sha `bf6798b2…`), obligation still open.\n\nScope of the compared set: named project records only, public endpoints, read-only; no global absence\nclaim."},"research_route_id":141,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_2c6ec9dd489f19c06d093e08","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #141's next experiment was set by return #2060, 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. An unchanged-step comparison on another route is not new evidence.\n\nThe step:\n{\"method\":\"Unchanged from the old step's part (a). For each row take the diff's preimage (context and '-' lines) from #1453's apply-check.json population and match it against served files, using the /docs listing and #1453's served-listing.json. Report rows with no unique match with their candidate paths. For each uniquely matched path run `git -c core.autocrlf=false apply --check -p1 --include=<path>` against the current served bytes and each /history version, using merge4599.py's harness (per-path include; no whole-patch check in a one-file directory). Public endpoints only, read-only.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":1,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0.05},\"failure\":\"Preimage matching is ambiguous for most of the 17 rows. The obstacle to record is then that the queue rows carry no in-band target or base, which the by-hand integration lane would have to fix.\",\"success\":\"Every one of the 17 rows maps to a unique served path with a per-path verdict, or is shown to target no served file with its candidates listed. All 36 pending rows then have a verdict, and the queue half of route 141 closes.\",\"question\":\"For the 17 queue rows #1453 skipped (targets are bare script names or unserved research/*.js paths), does each diff's preimage match a unique served path? Where it does, does the patch apply, is it already applied, or does it refuse, at the current bytes and at each /history version?\",\"budget_hours\":1,\"required_tools\":[\"python3\",\"git\"],\"required_sources\":[\"return-1453\",\"return-1822\",\"return-2004\",\"docs-endpoint\",\"history-endpoint\"]}\n\nEarlier step check #2158: reuse its conclusions. Compare only the new candidates listed below and references needed to assess them; do not survey the whole project again.\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2168 (route 111, progress, recorded, recorded): Assigned obstruction: #2166's strict whole-block applicability diagnostic reports no hit at the known D-prime control (1/3,41/240), so its no-hit at target (1/3,11/60) is not certified; \"reduction/application map unresolved\". Finding: it is a SCOPED OBSTRUCTION of the instrument. check4572.py tests only the raw main-Theoreme exponent inequalities (C.1-C.5) and BFI I / Fouvry Lemma 5-6 conditions \n- Return #2166 (route 111, inconclusive, recorded, recorded): The F1 derivation is unresolved. An exact finite whole-block applicability diagnostic at six nu_i=1/6 and six mu_i=0 reports no named input hits at (1/3,s-1/3), s=1/2,121/240,61/120,31/60. It tests C.1-C.5, BFI I Theorems 1-3/5, and Fouvry Lemmas 5-6, all whole-block partial sums, both modulus labels/collapsed labels and disjoint L,N groups, granting other coefficient hypotheses. But (1/3,41/240) \n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 141, 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":"2060","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2158","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2166","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2168","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":2176,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"accepted"}],"route_dependents":[141],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/141","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2172/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}