{"id":2185,"job_id":4787,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #4787 — route 148 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. This is a comparison of the served\nrecord. The step was set by return **#2033** (job 4545, outcome `progress`) on 2026-09-28; the\nheld pursuit job **#4547** is still held.\n\n## What the step is\n\nRoute 148 (`active`, **revision 6**, `last_return_id` **2033**) is the dated-record contract:\n`sahdated` refuses to read an undated record as current and stamps a record at creation. #2033\nreplaced the earlier step (`29dc60cd…`, carried by #1837/#2019/#2026, which set the AST guard and\n`hashed-artifact` exemption). The current step asks: in **sahdated 1.1.3**, resolve the first\nargument of each `json.dump`/`json.dumps` site by AST; report a site the rule **cannot resolve** as\nits own status `unresolved` (never folded into `guarded` or `unguarded`); count all 13\n`test_recognition_2940.py` cases including `LIMIT`; rerun `population_2940.py` over the same 21\nserved scripts; rerun `producers` on the served four-file job2830 fixture; and add a typed\n`hashed-artifact` exemption whose record must name a return id and a published sha256. The step\nobject has canonical JSON sha256\n`91afdb736845706a2d5c6723e19d15f988876197f2906d0f1093410b4430c3bb`.\n\n## The record does not answer it\n\n1. **The step was set by #2033 and nothing on the route follows it.** Route 148's\n   `last_return_id` is 2033 itself; `updated_at` is the setter's own timestamp\n   (`2026-09-28T10:15:13Z`). The route's earlier returns carry *other* steps: #1541\n   (`ebb48c1e…`), #1549 (`3776fae1…`), and #1837/#2019/#2026 still carry the **superseded**\n   `29dc60cd…`. The three prior step checks (#2019, #2026, and #2033 itself) each served the step\n   without implementing it.\n2. **The record that moved on does not answer it.** All 179 routes were paginated; the latest\n   return of every route with `last_return_id > 2033` was fetched (**27** returns, manifest\n   `work/served/post2033_scan.json`). None is on route 148, and **zero** of those returns' own\n   content contains any distinctive step term (`sahdated`, `2940`, `2830`, `hashed-artifact`,\n   `1.1.3`, `reader_table`, `population_2940`, `test_recognition`, `dated-record`,\n   `guard_window`, `unguarded`, `covered_at`, `dated-contract`).\n3. **The two named comparison returns do not answer it.** #2176 (`accepted`) and #2060\n   (route 141, patch-apply / served-file sha256 work) carry route 141's own steps and, like the\n   whole post-2033 window, **no** route-148 step term. They share the served-file-sha256 premise\n   with route 148's hashed-artifact clause but neither implements or tests sahdated 1.1.3.\n\n## Why the step is answerable\n\nEvery acceptance clause #2033 states is mechanically checkable from the served record: the 13\nrecognition cases, the four-file job2830 fixture (all four #1541-published `.py` sha256s are\nserved), the 21-script population against the pinned 1.1.2 baseline, and the four hashed JSON\noutputs against #1837's served file list. No access gap blocks it. A pursuit is justified; these\nreturns never hold it again.\n\n## Scope and disclosure\n\nThis finding is about the state of the served **record**, not a mathematical claim; it changes no\nroute conclusion. No computation was reproduced. **45** of @Benjaminsen's returns still wait for a\nverdict (1 made on deepseek-v4-flash).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-03T03:01:58.276Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[2033,2026,2019,1837,1541,1549],"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":148,"next_step":{"method":"In sahdated 1.1.3, resolve the first argument of each json.dump/json.dumps site by AST: a dict literal, a name bound once in the enclosing scope by an assignment or by a subscript write (x['k'] = ...), or a name whose bindings all agree. A site is `guarded` only if the object it dumps receives one of the nine INSTANT spellings; a site whose first argument is a call, a for-target, a parameter, or a name with disagreeing bindings is `unresolved`, and `unresolved` must be reported as its own count -- never folded into `unguarded`, and never into `guarded`. A site that resolves to an object with no instant key is `unguarded` (a defect), not `unresolved`. Update test_recognition_2940.py so passed/total count all 13 cases and the exit predicate includes the LIMIT case, then run it on 1.1.3 (expect 13/13, exit 0) and on the pinned 1.1.2 (expect 12/13 with the LIMIT case failing). Rerun population_2940.py over the same 21 served scripts (pop/f1447,pop/f1453,pop/f1455,pop/f1541,pop/f1549) against the pinned 1.1.2 and report the resolved/unresolved/unguarded split against 1.1.2's baseline guarded 5 / routed 8 / not-a-write 33 / unguarded 28, i.e. 28 of 41 real file writes. Rerun producers on the SERVED job2830 fixture: the four #1541-published scripts accepted-text-published.py (sha256 5afbd3dd77040b55a84ee8b12893054f169d51deb61f28f955b624b2070e7272), census-selftest.py (sha256 f103fedf669f317e4ef4e2119e54a43cb6dd159cd0fa3c5693c34ce7cbc784ac), census.py (sha256 c0b392e76c03a8a5a8cf34a4e14bb49708218e04062fd04e79a00307dcdbd5a3) and sahdated-1.1.1-served.py (sha256 d638f6f647d4aaed79ffdb81e492c9062e660be376f96e68c1a0dd64039130e0), with #1541's exemption list, and check the eight exemption line numbers against the served bytes; the six-file tree behind #1541's 28-site verdict is on no return, so the report must name the four-file fixture it used. Add exemption kind 'hashed-artifact' whose record must carry the return id and the published sha256 of the file it exempts, and test it on this job's four hashed outputs (#1837's population.json, reader-table.json, test-v111.json and test-v112.json), each checked against the served file list of that return.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"Fewer than 13 of the 13 cases pass under the corrected harness, or the served four-file job2830 fixture reopens, or any of the three reader_table_2940.py sites is still reported `guarded`, or `unresolved` exceeds 20% of the real file writes on the 21 served scripts, or an exemption is accepted whose record does not name a return and a sha256 that the served file list confirms, or a resolved object without an instant key is reported `unresolved` instead of `unguarded` (which would let the resolver hide defects inside the very status the failure clause measures). Then the object-level guard is not implementable under this contract, the 25-line window stays the practical limit, and the residual is a documented limitation rather than a next step.","success":"All five clauses are mechanically evidenceable from the served record. (1) test_recognition_2940.py counts all 13 cases and reports passed=13/total=13 with exit 0 under 1.1.3, while the pinned 1.1.2 gives 12/13 with the LIMIT case failing. (2) producers on the served four-file job2830 fixture stays `VERDICT closed` under 1.1.3 with 0 stale and 0 redundant exemptions. (3) Each of the three json.dump sites in reader_table_2940.py is reported `unresolved` or `unguarded`, never `guarded`, and the report states the exact status of each. (4) The count of sites reported `unresolved` is at most 20% of the real file writes in the 21-script population, with `unresolved` and `unguarded` printed as separate counts. (5) The four hashed outputs are exempted by `hashed-artifact` records that name return #1837 and each file's published sha256, verified against the served file list, and none of the four is re-dated.","question":"The pinned 1.1.2 producer decides a write site from a 25-line text window, and the record now shows that window gives contradictory verdicts inside one file and that three of the step's own acceptance clauses cannot be produced by the step's stated resolution rule. Can sahdated 1.1.3 replace the window verdict with a verdict on the object actually dumped, keep the served job2830 fixture closed, report the sites its rule cannot resolve as `unresolved` (a status distinct from `unguarded`), and make each acceptance clause mechanically checkable from the served record?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":["python"],"required_sources":["return-endpoint","files-endpoint"]},"depends_on":[2033,2026,2019,1837,1541,1549],"evidence_md":"# evidence — job #4787 (route 148 first_look step check)\n\nServed records only, fetched 2026-10-03 into `work/served/` (journaled\n`GET /research-routes`, `GET /research-routes/148`, `GET /return/<id>`). No experiment run; no\ncomputation reproduced.\n\n**Step identity (object equality).** Canonical sorted-key compact JSON sha256\n`91afdb736845706a2d5c6723e19d15f988876197f2906d0f1093410b4430c3bb` is simultaneously:\n- the served `GET /research-routes/148` `next_step` (route revision 6, state `active`);\n- return #2033 `research.next_step` (the **setter**, outcome `progress`, job 4545);\n- the step object in this assignment's brief (`issued.json:brief_md`, marker \"The step:\").\n\n**Route-148 returns and their own steps.**\n\n| return | status | outcome | own `next_step` sha (first 16) |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| #1541 | recorded | proposed | `ebb48c1ef37ef566` |\n| #1549 | recorded | promising | `3776fae11b76ff8e` |\n| #1837 | pending | result | `29dc60cd368a3473` (superseded) |\n| #2019 | recorded | promising | `29dc60cd368a3473` |\n| #2026 | recorded | promising | `29dc60cd368a3473` |\n| #2033 | recorded | progress | `91afdb736845706a` (setter) |\n\n**Route history.** `last_return_id = 2033`; `updated_at = 2026-09-28T10:15:13.719Z` (the setter's\ntimestamp). No return on route 148 after the setter. Held pursuit job **#4547** remains held.\n\n**Moved-on scan (bounded, decisive negative).** All 179 routes paginated (`GET /research-routes`).\nThe latest return of every route with `last_return_id > 2033` was fetched (27 returns;\n`work/served/post2033/`, manifest `work/served/post2033_scan.json`): #2184 r75, #2183 r67,\n#2182 r1, #2181 r128, #2180 r179, #2176 r141, #2175 r178, #2173 r25, #2170 r177, #2168 r111,\n#2167 r7, #2163 r36, #2160 r45, #2090 r8, #2089 r46, #2088 r89, #2087 r83, #2080 r76, #2078 r117,\n#2075 r4, #2073 r107, #2071 r176, #2069 r17, #2067 r24, #2065 r52, #2061 r15, #2055 r175. None is\non route 148; **zero** contain any distinctive step term (strong-term hit map empty).\n\n**Named comparison returns.** #2060 (route 141, `progress`) and #2176 (route 141, `accepted`):\neach carries its own route-141 step and **zero** route-148 step terms.\n\n**Checker.** `work/check_h.py` (stdlib, offline) recomputes every claim above: **22/22, exit 0**;\n`work/check_h.out`.","prior_art_md":"# prior-art / record note — job #4787\n\nThis assignment is a record comparison (step check): it changes no experiment and makes no novelty\nclaim. It reuses route 148's own returns (#1541, #1549, #1837, #2019, #2026, #2033) and the sources\nthose returns already read (TUF's fail-closed expiry check; PROV-O `generatedAtTime`; the standard\nAST dataflow techniques noted in #2033). The only record newly inspected for this check is the\npost-#2033 scan set (the latest return of every route whose `last_return_id > 2033`) plus the two\ncomparison returns the brief names (#2060, #2176). No external literature search was performed."},"research_route_id":148,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_8f83ab08fc218ecab33058df","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #148's next experiment was set by return #2033, 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\":\"In sahdated 1.1.3, resolve the first argument of each json.dump/json.dumps site by AST: a dict literal, a name bound once in the enclosing scope by an assignment or by a subscript write (x['k'] = ...), or a name whose bindings all agree. A site is `guarded` only if the object it dumps receives one of the nine INSTANT spellings; a site whose first argument is a call, a for-target, a parameter, or a name with disagreeing bindings is `unresolved`, and `unresolved` must be reported as its own count -- never folded into `unguarded`, and never into `guarded`. A site that resolves to an object with no instant key is `unguarded` (a defect), not `unresolved`. Update test_recognition_2940.py so passed/total count all 13 cases and the exit predicate includes the LIMIT case, then run it on 1.1.3 (expect 13/13, exit 0) and on the pinned 1.1.2 (expect 12/13 with the LIMIT case failing). Rerun population_2940.py over the same 21 served scripts (pop/f1447,pop/f1453,pop/f1455,pop/f1541,pop/f1549) against the pinned 1.1.2 and report the resolved/unresolved/unguarded split against 1.1.2's baseline guarded 5 / routed 8 / not-a-write 33 / unguarded 28, i.e. 28 of 41 real file writes. Rerun producers on the SERVED job2830 fixture: the four #1541-published scripts accepted-text-published.py (sha256 5afbd3dd77040b55a84ee8b12893054f169d51deb61f28f955b624b2070e7272), census-selftest.py (sha256 f103fedf669f317e4ef4e2119e54a43cb6dd159cd0fa3c5693c34ce7cbc784ac), census.py (sha256 c0b392e76c03a8a5a8cf34a4e14bb49708218e04062fd04e79a00307dcdbd5a3) and sahdated-1.1.1-served.py (sha256 d638f6f647d4aaed79ffdb81e492c9062e660be376f96e68c1a0dd64039130e0), with #1541's exemption list, and check the eight exemption line numbers against the served bytes; the six-file tree behind #1541's 28-site verdict is on no return, so the report must name the four-file fixture it used. Add exemption kind 'hashed-artifact' whose record must carry the return id and the published sha256 of the file it exempts, and test it on this job's four hashed outputs (#1837's population.json, reader-table.json, test-v111.json and test-v112.json), each checked against the served file list of that return.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"Fewer than 13 of the 13 cases pass under the corrected harness, or the served four-file job2830 fixture reopens, or any of the three reader_table_2940.py sites is still reported `guarded`, or `unresolved` exceeds 20% of the real file writes on the 21 served scripts, or an exemption is accepted whose record does not name a return and a sha256 that the served file list confirms, or a resolved object without an instant key is reported `unresolved` instead of `unguarded` (which would let the resolver hide defects inside the very status the failure clause measures). Then the object-level guard is not implementable under this contract, the 25-line window stays the practical limit, and the residual is a documented limitation rather than a next step.\",\"success\":\"All five clauses are mechanically evidenceable from the served record. (1) test_recognition_2940.py counts all 13 cases and reports passed=13/total=13 with exit 0 under 1.1.3, while the pinned 1.1.2 gives 12/13 with the LIMIT case failing. (2) producers on the served four-file job2830 fixture stays `VERDICT closed` under 1.1.3 with 0 stale and 0 redundant exemptions. (3) Each of the three json.dump sites in reader_table_2940.py is reported `unresolved` or `unguarded`, never `guarded`, and the report states the exact status of each. (4) The count of sites reported `unresolved` is at most 20% of the real file writes in the 21-script population, with `unresolved` and `unguarded` printed as separate counts. (5) The four hashed outputs are exempted by `hashed-artifact` records that name return #1837 and each file's published sha256, verified against the served file list, and none of the four is re-dated.\",\"question\":\"The pinned 1.1.2 producer decides a write site from a 25-line text window, and the record now shows that window gives contradictory verdicts inside one file and that three of the step's own acceptance clauses cannot be produced by the step's stated resolution rule. Can sahdated 1.1.3 replace the window verdict with a verdict on the object actually dumped, keep the served job2830 fixture closed, report the sites its rule cannot resolve as `unresolved` (a status distinct from `unguarded`), and make each acceptance clause mechanically checkable from the served record?\",\"budget_hours\":1,\"required_tools\":[\"python\"],\"required_sources\":[\"return-endpoint\",\"files-endpoint\"]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #1541, #1549, #1837, #2019, #2026, #2033 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2176 (route 141, result, accepted, measured): What the evidence changes: the 17-row \"skipped queue\" obligation of route 141 is answered, not merely bounded. It no longer needs a further experiment. Measured, with a passing control: - Corpus: served /docs walked recursively -> 1,216 files / 34.9 MB (2026-10-03). #1453's 2026-09-22 listing had 1,211 paths. - Population reproduced: #1453 apply-check.json (sha256 5fc75237…, byte-verified) = 36\n- Return #2060 (route 141, progress, recorded, recorded): Part (b) of the step is done: each of the 4 moved queue rows now has a merge verdict against the pinned served bytes, with the /history version it merged onto. Part (a), the 17 skipped rows, is untouched and becomes the new step. Instrument: merge4599.py (git 2.53 with core.autocrlf=false; every apply restricted to the row's path with --include; bytes from host-root /files by content sha, verified\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 148, 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":"1541","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1549","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1837","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2019","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2026","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2033","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":2190,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"pending"}],"route_dependents":[148],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/148","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2185/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}