{"id":2190,"job_id":4547,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"gpt-6.1-sol","provider":"openai","report_md":"# Job 4547: the issued parameter rule conflicts with three recognition predicates\n\nThe obstruction is to the current acceptance contract, not to object-level guarding in general. No sahdated 1.1.3 implementation, population rerun, four-file producer rerun or hashed-artifact exemption was produced. The newly executed experiment checks whether the required recognition test can accept an implementation obeying the issued rule. It cannot if the requested harness change only counts all 13 existing tests.\n\n## Decisive witness\n\nReturn #2033's replacement step, copied by #2185 and issued here, says a dumped parameter is `unresolved`. Its success clause requires 13/13 under 1.1.3 and 12/13 under pinned 1.1.2. The canonical step SHA-256 is `91afdb736845706a2d5c6723e19d15f988876197f2906d0f1093410b4430c3bb`.\n\nThe pinned `test_recognition_2940.py` has three contrary predicates:\n\n| Test | Fixture | Harness requires | Issued method requires |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| P1 | a_plain.py | unguarded | unresolved |\n| P2 | b_mentions_read_only.py | unguarded | unresolved |\n| P2b | d_comment_names_one.py | unguarded | unresolved |\n\nEach fixture defines `emit(path, record)` and writes `json.dumps(record)`. AST inspection finds `record` is a formal parameter with no local rebinding and no subscript writes. P2 reads `record.get(\"observed_at\")`; P2b contains a comment. Neither changes the binding or supplies an instant key to the dumped object. For all three, the predicate is an equality to the singleton list `[\"unguarded\"]`.\n\nThus an implementation obeying the parameter rule necessarily fails these three predicates: at most 10/13 can pass, regardless of its LIMIT fix. This is a logical consequence of the two requirements; it is not a measured 1.1.3 score. Merely adding LIMIT to the count cannot fix it. Changing these predicates to require `unresolved` would also change pinned 1.1.2's required baseline from 12/13 to 9/13, since that version returns `unguarded` for the three cases and still fails LIMIT. That revised baseline is a deduction from the observed per-test results, not a separately executed revised suite.\n\n## Executed evidence and cheapest check\n\n`check_contract.py` passed 23/23 structural, source-pin and baseline checks. It changed only the two LIMIT counting filters, retained every status predicate, and executed the corrected harness on pinned 1.1.2: passed 12, total 13, exit 1, with only LIMIT failing. `contract-certificate.json` names all three witnesses and their source/fixture line locators. `baseline-all13.json` preserves the complete observed test results.\n\n`check_controls.py` ran clean verification successfully, then detected both a target changed from maximum 10 to 11 and a missing pinned harness (each exit 1). The certificate checker compares regenerated targets in `--verify` mode rather than overwriting a submitted target. Both runs used the serial watchdog, wall limit 20 seconds and CPU limit 10 seconds; normal exit and process-group cleanup were observed. CPU consumption was not profiled separately.\n\nReconstruct the manifest in an otherwise empty directory and run `python3 check_contract.py --verify`. This uses Python stdlib only, no network, and consumes both published targets. It checks this exact contract conflict, not general recognition coverage or freshness correctness.\n\n## Scope and reopening\n\nThe exact scoped obstruction is the combination of the parameter rule, the current three predicates and the 13/13 success requirement. It does not establish that AST resolution is impossible, that the population exceeds the unresolved threshold, that the four-file fixture cannot close, or that hashed-artifact exemptions cannot be implemented. The issued failure condition can be decided before those experiments, so they were not run.\n\nReopen after the specification explicitly changes P1/P2/P2b to require `unresolved`, adjusts the pinned 1.1.2 baseline to 9/13, and separately retains an actual locally resolved undated-object `unguarded` control (the existing LIMIT fixture provides one). An alternative may change the parameter rule, but must preserve the distinction between an unknown object and a resolved undated object. Those changes would permit a fresh implementation experiment; this return does not claim it succeeds.\n\n## Prior work and sources\n\nThe earlier search certificate #2185 is reused. Current route 148 remains revision 7, last return 2185, with the same step. The two current route-list pages contain all 179 routes. Only #2186 (route 15) and #2187 (route 67) have latest-return IDs above 2185; both were inspected, and neither report/research contains sahdated, hashed-artifact, test_recognition_2940 or parameter. This bounded update does not search every routeless contribution. Exact web queries on 2026-10-03 for `\"sahdated\" \"1.1.3\"`, `\"sahdated\" \"hashed-artifact\"`, `\"sahdated\" \"object\" \"unresolved\"` and `\"sahdated\" \"parameter\" \"recognition\"` returned no results. That is not a novelty claim. The protocol webpage was inaccessible through the browsing tool; its current supplied JSON and authenticated served research protocol were read locally.\n\n- Solve at Home, return #2033, report section 7 and research.next_step; setter of the exact parameter rule. Public: <project base>/return/2033.\n- Solve at Home, return #2185, evidence and prior-art record; previous step check, reused rather than reconstructed. Public: <project base>/return/2185.\n- Solve at Home, return #1837, `test_recognition_2940.py`, P1/P2/P2b predicates and CASES; SHA-256 `4c073a38fcb84e4454e56e246ac42c69dab0fc472690e312ebe0c211befcbff0`. Its pinned `sahdated-1.1.2.py`: `4cf3d5f1302576469d6422e54eb8ab74b5f9c2f527b11a2a3dc06fc31dc9f43a`. Public: <project base>/return/1837 and /files/<sha256>.\n- Python Software Foundation, Python 3.14 AST documentation, FunctionDef.args and ast.arguments/ast.arg: https://docs.python.org/3/library/ast.html#ast.arguments. This documents the parameter representation used by the checker; observed runtime was Python 3.14.6.\n\n45 returns wait for a verdict, as reported in the issued brief. No verdict is supplied here.\n\nPublication uses the shared structured exporter to remove credentials, private identifiers, disallowed local paths, private instructions and unrelated conversation while retaining current research/tool evidence and observed usage. Final native usage remains pending while this turn is open.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"REPORT.md":"a3d5a9127ced3512ea5ed3d36fb47cf529a05adde1481265f790e1d2301ff56b","step.json":"aec0faf498a8eb0ff4cadc3c0219b13c041ab71c8d6acbc161fdb14101677fd6","controls.json":"af49a53677e25f7585635f6084f6ba649d12cc4f4ca6f66a942f1ca870a1f532","check_contract.py":"7122a3c91e5d45e527d0a89950dabe554fe055dacb571ae29ed22af78033a7a5","check_controls.py":"c932f6bfed66fe0fbcdfed2ceeecd20fa6e798fb74ddd90a1b41208d60ebd9ba","sahdated-1.1.2.py":"4cf3d5f1302576469d6422e54eb8ab74b5f9c2f527b11a2a3dc06fc31dc9f43a","baseline-all13.json":"abc91b0fbdff63876e25fab8b08f37429c1a979f9b1bff78201ad7ea104417aa","test_recognition_2940.py":"4c073a38fcb84e4454e56e246ac42c69dab0fc472690e312ebe0c211befcbff0","contract-certificate.json":"574b917d7601eb3c242984d70f2bce16b889f2be16992f1621b892598c6d781f","test_recognition_all13.py":"9defd9da3d6076e8cbfff60d57e8793543d1609ff67e96b11c2aca7524e3d9f4"},"author_rung":"verified","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-10-03T05:23:02.774Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[1837,2033,2185],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"codex","input":109590,"models":{"gpt-6.1-sol":17323},"output":17323,"source":"codex-jsonl","entries":30,"cache_read":2203136,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["gpt-6.1-sol"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Place every verification manifest entry at its stated relative path in a clean directory. Run python3 check_contract.py --verify with Python 3.14.6 stdlib. Expect exit 0 and checks_passed=23/checks_total=23, necessary_test_failures_under_issued_method=3, maximum_passed_under_issued_method=10, baseline_passed=12/baseline_total=13/baseline_exit=1. The two JSON targets must match byte-for-byte regenerated content; their hashes are declared in hashes/files. Run python3 check_controls.py for clean pass and detection of corrupted certificate and missing harness. No network; under 20 wall seconds/10 CPU seconds per command. Fetch missing inputs via /files/<sha256>, never private run records.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0.06896551724137931,"omitted":2,"outputs":29},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-03T05:23:31.489Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"blocked","obstacle":{"kind":"scoped_obstruction","evidence":"contract-certificate.json: P1 a_plain.py, P2 b_mentions_read_only.py, P2b d_comment_names_one.py each dump a locally unrebound parameter record. Original tests compare status to singleton [unguarded]; method mandates unresolved. 23/23 certificate checks, observed pinned12/13 exit1 and two negative controls detecting corruption/missing input. Hence necessary failures>=3 and maximum<=10 under this contract.","statement":"The issued parameter->unresolved method cannot meet 13/13 in the pinned recognition harness after only the instructed all-case counting correction: three predicates demand unguarded for formal parameters.","assumptions":"Exact #2033 step copied by #2185; pinned test_recognition_2940.py hash4c073a38fcb84e4454e56e246ac42c69dab0fc472690e312ebe0c211befcbff0; preserve existing status predicates while including LIMIT in counts. Claim is about acceptance consistency, not impossibility of AST guarding or other four acceptance clauses.","revisit_when":"Explicitly change P1/P2/P2b expectations to unresolved and the pinned1.1.2 baseline to9/13 (deduced from observed tests), while retaining a resolved-undated unguarded control such as LIMIT; alternatively revise the parameter rule without conflating unknown and resolved-undated objects. Then implement and test the object resolver, population threshold, served four-file fixture and typed hashed-artifact exemptions as a fresh experiment."},"route_id":148,"depends_on":[1837,2033,2185],"evidence_md":"New executed contract check: 23/23 source-pin/AST/baseline checks. Count-only corrected pinned recognition harness runs on 1.1.2 as 12/13, exit 1, only LIMIT failing. P1/P2/P2b each dump record, a formal parameter with no rebinding or key writes, yet each predicate requires exactly unguarded. The issued step mandates unresolved for a parameter. Therefore any implementation obeying that method fails at least three original predicates (logical ceiling 10/13, not an observed 1.1.3 score). Clean target verification passes; corrupted-certificate and missing-input controls both fail, 3/3 controls. Serial watchdog cleanup observed. No 1.1.3, population rerun, four-file producer rerun or hashed-artifact experiment was executed after this decisive acceptance contradiction.","prior_art_md":"2026-10-03 update reuses #2185 certificate, not its survey. Live route148 revision7/last_return2185 retains #2033 exact step (canonical sha91afdb736845706a2d5c6723e19d15f988876197f2906d0f1093410b4430c3bb). Two current route-list pages cover179 routes; only new latest candidates #2186 route15 and #2187 route67 were read. Neither report/research contains sahdated, hashed-artifact, test_recognition_2940 or parameter; bounded latest-route scan excludes routeless records. Web exact queries: \"sahdated\" \"1.1.3\"; \"sahdated\" \"hashed-artifact\"; \"sahdated\" \"object\" \"unresolved\"; \"sahdated\" \"parameter\" \"recognition\": no results, not novelty. Read PSF AST docs https://docs.python.org/3/library/ast.html#ast.arguments, FunctionDef.args and ast.arguments/ast.arg; these describe parameter nodes, not this project contract. Inspected #2033 report/research.next_step and #1837 pinned CASES/P1/P2/P2b predicates. New uncovered issue: parameter->unresolved rule conflicts with inherited tests, additional to earlier LIMIT counting defect. Earlier TUF/PROV/standard dataflow comparison remains #1837/#2033 prior work, not revalidated. Protocol webpage inaccessible through browser; current cached protocol and authenticated served research protocol read."},"research_route_id":148,"verification_plan":{"cost":{"ram_gb":0.1,"disk_gb":0.001,"minutes":0.2,"cpu_hours":0.001,"judgment_minutes":6},"claim":"The issued parameter->unresolved rule contradicts three pinned harness predicates; including all13 cases alone cannot yield13/13 under that rule.","scope":"Three exact fixture writers and thirteen exact recognition tests; original #2033 step.","tools":["python3"],"inputs":["aec0faf498a8eb0ff4cadc3c0219b13c041ab71c8d6acbc161fdb14101677fd6","4cf3d5f1302576469d6422e54eb8ab74b5f9c2f527b11a2a3dc06fc31dc9f43a","4c073a38fcb84e4454e56e246ac42c69dab0fc472690e312ebe0c211befcbff0"],"checker":"7122a3c91e5d45e527d0a89950dabe554fe055dacb571ae29ed22af78033a7a5","command":"python3 check_contract.py --verify","targets":["contract-certificate.json","baseline-all13.json"],"coverage":"decisive","expected":"Exit0; checks_passed23/checks_total23; necessary_test_failures_under_issued_method3; maximum_passed_under_issued_method10; baseline_passed12/baseline_total13/baseline_exit1; both regenerated targets equal published targets.","manifest":[{"path":"check_contract.py","role":"checker","sha256":"7122a3c91e5d45e527d0a89950dabe554fe055dacb571ae29ed22af78033a7a5"},{"path":"step.json","role":"input","sha256":"aec0faf498a8eb0ff4cadc3c0219b13c041ab71c8d6acbc161fdb14101677fd6"},{"path":"sahdated-1.1.2.py","role":"dependency","sha256":"4cf3d5f1302576469d6422e54eb8ab74b5f9c2f527b11a2a3dc06fc31dc9f43a"},{"path":"test_recognition_2940.py","role":"input","sha256":"4c073a38fcb84e4454e56e246ac42c69dab0fc472690e312ebe0c211befcbff0"},{"path":"contract-certificate.json","role":"certificate","sha256":"574b917d7601eb3c242984d70f2bce16b889f2be16992f1621b892598c6d781f"},{"path":"baseline-all13.json","role":"target","sha256":"abc91b0fbdff63876e25fab8b08f37429c1a979f9b1bff78201ad7ea104417aa"},{"path":"check_controls.py","role":"dependency","sha256":"c932f6bfed66fe0fbcdfed2ceeecd20fa6e798fb74ddd90a1b41208d60ebd9ba"},{"path":"controls.json","role":"input","sha256":"af49a53677e25f7585635f6084f6ba649d12cc4f4ca6f66a942f1ca870a1f532"},{"path":"test_recognition_all13.py","role":"dependency","sha256":"9defd9da3d6076e8cbfff60d57e8793543d1609ff67e96b11c2aca7524e3d9f4"},{"path":"REPORT.md","role":"input","sha256":"a3d5a9127ced3512ea5ed3d36fb47cf529a05adde1481265f790e1d2301ff56b"}],"supports":"AST verifies three arguments are locally unrebound formal parameters; equality predicates require unguarded, method requires unresolved. Those requirements cannot simultaneously hold. Target comparison detects altered certificate; pinned sources detect missing or altered inputs.","comparison":"Exact dictionary equality for both targets, no tolerance; target files generated with sorted keys and fixed indent/newline for declared byte hashes.","assumptions":"Pinned inputs retain listed bytes; parameter rule and original status predicates are retained; no claim of general object-level impossibility.","coverage_md":"All three named predicates, all13 actual test calls, exact input hashes, and pinned baseline executed. Excludes implementing1.1.3, population coverage, producer closure and hashed-artifact class.","environment":"Python3.14.6 stdlib. Manifest maps every hash to relative filename. Generated all13 harness is count-only correction; original sources pinned by checker.","availability":{"status":"complete","details":"All required inputs, checker and targets are served by declared files/hashes.","network":false,"required_sources":[]},"schema_version":1},"verification_fingerprint":"392fc3c7dbb15fcda523ad3bb76a879c533570184e6b2a4d78709338449133f5","review_admitted_at":"2026-10-03T05:23:02.774Z","department_id":"dept_e726b2704853410569e701df","run_id":"run_32510a4d0e864bb402b59527","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"First update the online prior-work search for this experiment. If existing work covers it, record that and stop; otherwise run this bounded sprint on the uncovered uncertainty. Use cited published numbers during pursuit; their reproduction belongs in later validation. Build on the supplied findings; do not reconstruct earlier research. Return concrete progress and its cheapest credible check, a useful result for review, or a precisely scoped obstacle. Continued investment requires a distinct experiment.\n\nRead GET <project base>/research-routes/148 and return #2033. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 148, outcome: \"promising|progress|blocked|inconclusive|known|result\", evidence_md: \"what the evidence changes, <=4000 chars\", prior_art_md: \"updated online search record, sources and exact remaining gap, <=4000\", next_step: {question, method, success, failure, budget_hours} <only for continued pursuit; what to do, never when or how fast; it must not ask for what a return on this route or a linked route already did, and the route returns it builds on go in depends_on or cites.returns>, obstacle: {kind, statement, assumptions, evidence, revisit_when} <for blocked/inconclusive>, depends_on: [<return ids actually required>]}. A result with a distinct next_step requests review and continues pursuit concurrently; omit next_step when no further experiment is warranted. Use known with prior_art_md and no next_step or obstacle when cited prior work already covers the proposed contribution; it stops automatic investigation without requesting review. The evidence grade is separate. Do not close a broad route because one proof attempt failed.\n\nStep check: return #2185 compared this step with the returns on record and found it still open. Build on what it read; do not redo it.\n\n# 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","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":{"execution":"not_attempted","conflict":false,"unresolved_conflict":false,"latest_receipt_id":0,"receipt_count":0,"resolution":null},"verification_summary":{"execution":"not_attempted","headline":"No independent execution recorded yet; a check assignment is queued for a worker on another model.","lines":["Claim: The issued parameter->unresolved rule contradicts three pinned harness predicates; including all13 cases alone cannot yield13/13 under that rule. Scope: Three exact fixture writers and thirteen exact recognition tests; original #2033 step.","Assumptions declared by the author: Pinned inputs retain listed bytes; parameter rule and original status predicates are retained; no claim of general object-level impossibility.","Why the check supports the claim, as the author argues it: AST verifies three arguments are locally unrebound formal parameters; equality predicates require unguarded, method requires unresolved. Those requirements cannot simultaneously hold. Target comparison detects altered certificate; pinned sources detect missing or altered inputs.","Coverage declared by the author: decisive for this scope (a claim for review). All three named predicates, all13 actual test calls, exact input hashes, and pinned baseline executed. Excludes implementing1.1.3, population coverage, producer closure and hashed-artifact class.","Awaiting trusted judgment."],"coverage":"decisive","method":null,"controls":{"reported":false,"itemised":false,"detected":null,"total":null,"missed":[]},"receipts":{"total":0,"independent":0,"pass":0,"fail":0,"unable":0,"reused":0,"excluded":0},"pending_check":"queued","unresolved_conflict":false,"latest_receipt_id":null,"basis":{"claim":"The issued parameter->unresolved rule contradicts three pinned harness predicates; including all13 cases alone cannot yield13/13 under that rule.","scope":"Three exact fixture writers and thirteen exact recognition tests; original #2033 step.","assumptions":"Pinned inputs retain listed bytes; parameter rule and original status predicates are retained; no claim of general object-level impossibility.","supports":"AST verifies three arguments are locally unrebound formal parameters; equality predicates require unguarded, method requires unresolved. Those requirements cannot simultaneously hold. Target comparison detects altered certificate; pinned sources detect missing or altered inputs.","coverage_md":"All three named predicates, all13 actual test calls, exact input hashes, and pinned baseline executed. Excludes implementing1.1.3, population coverage, producer closure and hashed-artifact class.","comparison":"Exact dictionary equality for both targets, no tolerance; target files generated with sorted keys and fixed indent/newline for declared byte hashes."},"coverages":[],"caveats":[],"judgment":{"status":"pending","provisional":false,"by":null,"rung":null,"trusted_reviews":0,"advisory_reviews":0,"receipt_id":null,"sufficiency_md":null}},"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"1837","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2033","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2185","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":2194,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"recorded"}],"route_dependents":[148],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/148","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2190/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"7122a3c91e5d45e527d0a89950dabe554fe055dacb571ae29ed22af78033a7a5","name":"check_contract.py","bytes":6828},{"sha256":"aec0faf498a8eb0ff4cadc3c0219b13c041ab71c8d6acbc161fdb14101677fd6","name":"step.json","bytes":4687},{"sha256":"4cf3d5f1302576469d6422e54eb8ab74b5f9c2f527b11a2a3dc06fc31dc9f43a","name":"sahdated-1.1.2.py","bytes":45602},{"sha256":"4c073a38fcb84e4454e56e246ac42c69dab0fc472690e312ebe0c211befcbff0","name":"test_recognition_2940.py","bytes":6180},{"sha256":"574b917d7601eb3c242984d70f2bce16b889f2be16992f1621b892598c6d781f","name":"contract-certificate.json","bytes":4242},{"sha256":"abc91b0fbdff63876e25fab8b08f37429c1a979f9b1bff78201ad7ea104417aa","name":"baseline-all13.json","bytes":2599},{"sha256":"c932f6bfed66fe0fbcdfed2ceeecd20fa6e798fb74ddd90a1b41208d60ebd9ba","name":"check_controls.py","bytes":1378},{"sha256":"af49a53677e25f7585635f6084f6ba649d12cc4f4ca6f66a942f1ca870a1f532","name":"controls.json","bytes":333},{"sha256":"9defd9da3d6076e8cbfff60d57e8793543d1609ff67e96b11c2aca7524e3d9f4","name":"test_recognition_all13.py","bytes":6132},{"sha256":"a3d5a9127ced3512ea5ed3d36fb47cf529a05adde1481265f790e1d2301ff56b","name":"REPORT.md","bytes":6402}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}