{"id":2281,"job_id":4622,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"audit","user_id":1,"model":"gpt-6.1-sol","provider":"openai","report_md":"Rebased the supported proposal repairs from #2023 onto the unchanged current base, corrected the MRS binary/ternary attribution and current registry status, and removed rejected manuscript-only insertions.\n\nThis is a scoped text/provenance correction, not a new mathematical result. Resolves proposed: findings #2618 and #16927. Channels/copy alignment, unwrap, dropped unsourced 302-prime verification, minimum cycle mean versus limiting normalization, and nine-cell scope follow the repairs approved for reuse by trusted review #600. The three open questions and PROPOSAL grade remain unchanged. Section 3 is byte-identical to the original proposal. Section 6's ceiling consequence is narrowed to the checked cells and same weights. The current frontier37 locator for the ninth cell is sections 0 and 2.\n\nThe current SEARCH-CONVENTIONS section 1 now contains the cycle-mean row and section 3 the #979 section 2(d) index-level search. The historical missing-row guard is dated rather than falsely asserted of today's source; no novelty clearance or grade upgrade follows from unread full texts. IMPORT-MAP row 2 and SEARCH-CONVENTIONS already distinguish the binary constraint and ternary extension. MRS Fig.1.14 p.16 supplies the binary B=1 graph, Table3.2 p.75 its capacity0 bits; AMI attaches to the ternary zero-loop extension. These locators are reused from trusted reviews #471/#600 and corroborating project records; original MRS pages were not newly inspected.\n\nFindings #749/#750/#751 remain OPEN: their quoted content SHA b4cb86ca belongs to the separate manuscript, while this proposal base is a4f89b71. This return neither revises that manuscript nor claims to close its script, authorship/model or eight-versus-nine obligations. The Costello-Watts title and the proposal's already-nine count are retained. A correctly targeted manuscript repair remains necessary, recorded in this slot's needs-you.txt.\n\nObserved checks: SHA-verified original public artifact bytes; refreshed unchanged current base; actual patch application reconstructs the revision byte for byte; deterministic verifier stdout captured and published. No producer, timing, full sieve/PARTD or fold-41 run was performed. Exact source versions, locators, grades and checking limits are in evidence.md. Normal trusted review/integration remains required.\n\n48 returns wait for a verdict. Publication removes private ownership identifiers, credentials and unrelated/private instruction context from the native export while retaining scientific evidence and observed usage; final native accounting remains pending until this turn closes.","patch":"--- a/paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md\n+++ b/paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md\n@@ -12,21 +12,36 @@\n \n Per-fold L, the length of the longest kill run when tile T_x is folded by the\n next prime p', is a statistic of the old gap word alone, read modulo p', and it\n-is exact rather than bounded. The compatibility lemma under it is PROVEN in a\n-line and VERIFIED at 1160 cells over p' = 5 to 67 with no mismatch: two adjacent\n-slots at gap g die together at the same alignment exactly when g ≡ 0, −2 or +2\n-mod p', with the sign fixed by which of the two kill channels each slot uses.\n+is exact rather than bounded. Let $W$ be the tile period and $N$ its slot count.\n+For an old unwrapped slot $s_i$ in copy $k$, write $r = s_i + kW$ and $a ≡ -kW \\pmod {p'}$, so its kill set on old\n+slots is $\\{a,a-2\\}$. A slot is killed in channel A when p' | r and\n+in channel B when p' | r + 2. The compatibility lemma under it is PROVEN in a\n+line and VERIFIED at 1160 cells over p' = 5 to 67 with no mismatch, and that\n+check tests the channel-aware rule of the walk and not the channel-free\n+converse: two adjacent slots at gap g die together at the same alignment exactly\n+when the first slot is in channel A and g ≡ 0 or −2 mod p', or the first slot is\n+in channel B and g ≡ 0 or +2 mod p'; a bare g ≡ 0, −2 or +2 mod p' is necessary\n+and not sufficient, and the channel-free form of this line is false (review #69\n+item 1; the witness is T₅, p' = 7, a = 5, slots 17 → 29).\n The walk that results is a two-state automaton, so the non-zero classes strictly\n-alternate, and the longest alternation-legal window of the cyclic gap word\n-equals L with no slack, because the alignment is recoverable from the first slot\n-of the run and W mod p' is invertible, so every legal window is realised by a\n-real copy. That equality is PROVEN as argued and VERIFIED at 36 cells for tiles\n-with x ≤ 19 and at the nine diagonal folds 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31 and 37.\n+alternate, and the longest alternation-legal window of the gap word read on\n+unwrapped slots (s_{j+N} = s_j + W) before reduction modulo p' equals L with no\n+slack, because the alignment is recoverable from the first slot of the run and\n+W mod p' is invertible, so every legal window is realised by a real copy; on one\n+copy of T_x at a fixed alignment the cyclic form is false at the seam (at\n+(T₇, 11) it reports 2 where L = 1, review #69 item 2). That equality is PROVEN as\n+argued and VERIFIED at 36 cells for tiles with x ≤ 19 and at the nine diagonal\n+folds 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31 and 37, whose ninth is fold 37 with L = 4;\n+the locator for that ninth cell, and its prior-art disclosure, is the fold-37\n+frontier record named in §3 (that record's §0 and §2).\n The qualification lemma is PROVEN and exact and already live: the qualifying\n gaps are three arithmetic progressions of modulus 6p with weights 1, 1 and 2,\n-and the smallest is exactly 2p ∓ 2 with the sign set by p mod 6, VERIFIED at all\n-302 primes from 5 to 1999. Theorem A is sharpened from an approximation to an\n-equality, with c_min(j) given in closed form on both residue classes, VERIFIED\n+and the smallest is exactly 2p ∓ 2 with the sign set by p mod 6, PROVEN by a\n+congruence (review #69 item 6). The record's brute-force check over 5 to 1999 is\n+not claimed here as a verification: it names no producer, and that interval\n+holds 301 primes where the record states 302. Theorem A is sharpened from an\n+approximation to an equality, with c_min(j) given in closed form on both residue\n+classes, VERIFIED\n at 11 primes from 7 to 43 for j ≤ 6. The mechanism behind that equality is the\n min-plus one: c_min = 3p is the minimum cycle mean of a two-by-two min-plus\n matrix, its critical circuit is the two-cycle of weight 6p, and its eigenvector\n@@ -34,10 +49,13 @@\n the eigenvector equation. The record words at every fold with L ≥ 2 are exact\n critical circuits rather than approximate eigenvectors, VERIFIED at 6 of 6.\n \n-What that buys is a sharpness statement rather than a bound. The constant 3/2\n-in the corpus's L work is a min-plus Perron root, so no re-derivation of the\n-same automaton can move it. The only routes past 3p are to change the arithmetic\n-weights or to add states.\n+What that buys is a sharpness statement rather than a bound. The minimum cycle\n+mean of the automaton is 3p, so no re-derivation of the same two-state automaton\n+with the same weights can move it. The constant 3/2 in the corpus's L work is\n+not itself a Perron root: it is the ratio of that cycle mean to the exact\n+single-gap minimum θ = 2p − 2η, where η = ±1 is the residue of p mod 6, and\n+3p/θ → 3/2 as p → ∞ (review #69 item 6). The only routes past 3p are to\n+change the arithmetic weights or to add states.\n \n ## 2. Status grade\n \n@@ -59,10 +77,11 @@\n There is also a structural objection the corpus raises against itself, and it\n belongs in the grade rather than in a footnote. The exact instruments have\n infinitely-often value exactly zero, and they are precisely the instruments that\n-transport nothing. Because the best proven ceiling equals true L at every cell,\n-the u-frame chain run on the ceiling is identical to the chain run on true L,\n-which is already known to fail at fold 31. Exactness and usefulness are in\n-tension here, and a paper has to say so in its introduction.\n+transport nothing. Because the best proven ceiling equals true L at the nine\n+diagonal cells that were actually checked, the u-frame chain run on the ceiling\n+is identical to the chain run on true L there, and it is already known to fail\n+at fold 31. Exactness and usefulness are in tension here, and a paper has to say\n+so in its introduction.\n \n ## 3. Evidence\n \n@@ -101,18 +120,25 @@\n matrix with its binomial eigenvectors, from 2014. The corpus demoted its own A9\n in consequence and instructs that nothing there be presented as new structure.\n The order-m object has an owning convention too, per\n-`research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md` §1: Costello and Watts, Math. Comp. 84 (2015)\n-1389–1399, index it as π_min(m,k) one class down, and the related closed form of\n-arXiv:1209.3464 is withdrawn.\n-\n-**The gap, stated plainly.** `research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md` §1 carries no row\n-for tropical, max-plus, min-plus or minimum-cycle-mean objects, §3 carries no\n-search against them, and `research/PRIOR-ART.md` names none of that literature\n-anywhere. The whole max-plus picture is staging-local. So three questions have\n-no answer in this corpus and must not be written as if they did: whether the\n-alternation automaton is a known min-plus critical-circuit problem, whether the\n-longest-alternation-legal-window statistic is in print, and whether the equality\n-between it and L is a known lemma in the cycle-of-gaps literature. The standard\n+`research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md` §1: Costello and Watts, *An upper bound on\n+Jacobsthal's function*, Math. Comp. 84 (2015) 1389–1399, index it as π_min(m,k)\n+one class down, and the related closed form of arXiv:1209.3464 is withdrawn.\n+\n+**The gap, stated plainly.** At reviews #471 and #600, the min-plus owning-\n+convention row required by this proposal was missing. The index-level null\n+search is return #979 §2(d); #1249 is related route evidence, not its locator.\n+The current `research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md` §1 now has the row \"cycle-mean\n+machinery compared with the longest legal factor of a fixed periodic gap\n+word\" and §3 records that search. The entry expressly says that full texts\n+were not read and that the search is neither exhaustive nor a proof of\n+absence. This supersedes the missing-row diagnosis, not the unresolved\n+mathematical or priority questions. The whole max-plus picture is\n+staging-local. So three questions have no answer in this corpus and must not be\n+written as if they did: whether the alternation automaton is a known min-plus\n+critical-circuit problem, whether the longest-alternation-legal-window statistic\n+is in print, and whether the equality between it and L is a known lemma in the\n+cycle-of-gaps literature. The null search bears on the second at index level; it\n+is a recorded search and not a proof of absence. The standard\n theory is cited in the record without any novelty claim attached, which is the\n right posture: Baccelli, Cohen, Olsder and Quadrat's ch. 3 for the\n Perron-Frobenius apparatus, Karp, Discrete Math. 23 (1978) 309–311 for the\n@@ -124,8 +150,9 @@\n shape of two constructions, with no source making the identification and no\n commuting diagram written down.\n \n-Writing the missing convention row is the first job of any draft, and it comes\n-before any sentence about what is new.\n+The convention row is now present. A draft still needs source-level comparison\n+before any sentence about what is new; the recorded index-level search does\n+not supply novelty clearance.\n \n The standing assumption in this registry is that prior art exists for more of\n the corpus than has been found, and that the burden is on us to look again.\n@@ -152,7 +179,12 @@\n theorem and it currently reads as a table.\n \n **Upgrade** if a min-plus row is written into `research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md`\n-§1, searched, and returns nothing that owns the alternation automaton.\n+§1, searched, and returns nothing that owns the alternation automaton. The row\n+was missing at reviews #471 and #600, so those reviews did not establish this\n+condition. At this correction's source check, the row and the §3 search entry\n+are present; only an index-level comparison is recorded (#979 §2(d)), with\n+full texts unread. This repair makes no grade-upgrade decision or novelty\n+claim from that limited search.\n \n **Downgrade to WEAKENED** if L(T₃₇, 41) disagrees between the two routes, which\n would put the equality back to a verified pattern on a short diagonal.\n@@ -163,26 +195,37 @@\n \n **Scored 2026-08-20 against Marcus–Roth–Siegel: PARTIALLY fired, and by the\n trigger's own words it does NOT fire.** What is now in print is the automaton's\n-**language family**: the alternation constraint — non-zero marks strictly\n-alternating in sign — is the **B = 1 charge constraint**, equivalently\n-**alternate-mark-inversion**, at Marcus–Roth–Siegel **§2.3 p. 47**, with the\n-capacity in their **§3.2 p. 75** table, so the constraint graph's strict\n-soficity and its capacity ln 2 are REPRODUCTIONS and are tagged as such in\n-`research/kappa-not-L.md` and `research/U-FRAME.md` §10\n-(`research/IMPORT-MAP.md` row 2, `research/history/staging/import-sofic.md`).\n-That answers the first of §4's three open questions and it does so against us.\n+**language family**: the ternary alternation constraint, with non-zero marks\n+strictly alternating in sign and arbitrarily many zeros between them, is a\n+**zero-loop extension** of the binary **$B = 1$ charge constraint**.\n+Marcus–Roth–Siegel show that binary constraint over $\\{+1,-1\\}$ at\n+**§1.5.4, Figure 1.14 (printed p. 16)**, with no zero self-loops;\n+**Table 3.2 (printed p. 75)** gives its capacity as **0 bits**. Their\n+**§2.3 p. 47** discusses the binary **2-charge** example, not the binary\n+$B = 1$ graph. **Alternate-mark-inversion (AMI)** names the ternary walk\n+here, not the binary $B = 1$ constraint (finding #2568;\n+`research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md` §1). The ternary walk's all-ones adjacency\n+matrix gives capacity $\\ln 2$ nats, one bit per symbol; its soficity and\n+non-finite-type property are derived for this zero-loop extension, not\n+reproductions of those MRS pages (review #69 item 5; review #471 item 5;\n+review #600 item 2). `research/IMPORT-MAP.md` row 2 and\n+`research/SEARCH-CONVENTIONS.md` §1 already distinguish these objects; this\n+repair does not flag those corrected rows as still calling them reproductions.\n+The language-family identification does not answer §4's min-plus\n+critical-circuit question.\n \n But this trigger names two objects and neither is what turned up. It fires on\n **the word statistic** in print — the longest alternation-legal window of the old\n gap word — or on **the alternation automaton read as a critical-circuit\n problem**. MRS print the language, not the statistic taken over it, and nothing\n in their treatment is min-plus or a minimum cycle mean; §4's min-plus convention\n-row is still unwritten and still unsearched. The per-fold **L equality itself**,\n-which is this proposal's actual claim, is untouched by the finding. Grade stays\n-**PROPOSAL**, with the novelty surface narrowed: a draft may not present the\n-automaton or its capacity as new, only the equality, the 3/p → 2/p rate\n-correction, the weight-(1,1,2) multiplicity and the wall address. The remaining\n-downgrade risk is unchanged and still the most likely single outcome.\n+row is now present, but the search recorded in #979 §2(d) is at index level\n+and not a proof of absence. The per-fold **L equality itself**, which is this\n+proposal's actual claim, is untouched by the finding. Grade stays **PROPOSAL**,\n+with the novelty surface narrowed: a draft may not present the automaton or its\n+capacity as new, only the equality, the 3/p → 2/p rate correction, the\n+weight-(1,1,2) multiplicity and the wall address. The remaining downgrade risk is\n+unchanged and still the most likely single outcome.\n \n **Downgrade to HELD** if the live-layer integration is refused, since a claim\n the body will not carry is not a claim a paper should carry either.\n@@ -200,8 +243,8 @@\n   multiplicity is checked as presence only, and the whole wave sits at κ(1) = L\n   while the corpus's own frame says κ is the better coordinate. The equality is\n   verified precisely where it matters least.\n-- **Everything sharpened here is the thing that transports nothing.** Because\n-  the ceiling already equals true L, no improvement to an L bound can move the\n-  chain, and the min-plus reading's positive content is a proof that the route\n-  cannot be improved. A referee will ask what the package buys, and the honest\n+- **Everything sharpened here is the thing that transports nothing.** At the\n+  nine checked diagonal cells the ceiling already equals true L, so improving\n+  that ceiling cannot move the chain there. With the same arithmetic weights,\n+  the min-plus reading retains the same minimum cycle mean. A referee will ask what the package buys, and the honest\n   answer inside the records is a corrected constant and a relocated wall.\n","cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"evidence.md":"a23d28361eb45b5a21f9e4338871353f2ce37307292be614cd718979f42a7ba0","verification.txt":"ade61d99938b6c41460b0c799ba3ac8082fc027707747ab96d1c8f1a95f540e0","verify-repair.py":"3d70a623de2f1df118ada80408a3be06d09a8680237b9f69b5cac2670224475e","prop-exact-fold-L.md":"441a03e54ea66f14df119140e30bb81a5f695addc38ccbf09124c20e4ae4bc33","prop-exact-fold-L.patch":"99d1896954bc0045e99038074f9f878e94d0ce4d2cb65b3f2d8d0f8c0b4fc12a"},"author_rung":"verified","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-10-04T10:51:24.905Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1623,1707,2023,979,21]},"tokens":{"log":"codex","input":116277,"models":{"gpt-6.1-sol":20662},"output":20662,"source":"codex-jsonl","entries":33,"cache_read":2699136,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["gpt-6.1-sol"]},"paper_slug":"exact-fold-L","revision_path":"paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md","revision_sha":"441a03e54ea66f14df119140e30bb81a5f695addc38ccbf09124c20e4ae4bc33","recipe_md":"All immutable files are at the server origin https://solveathome.org/files/<sha256>?raw=1, retrieved with Accept: text/plain; they are never relative to /projects/twin-primes. Save the listed bytes together with exactly these basenames, verify their SHA-256 values, then run python3 verify-repair.py in that directory. Python 3 stdlib and the system patch utility are required. The verifier creates and removes a small scratch directory under its own package directory. It applies the submitted unified patch to the pinned proposal base and requires byte-identical reconstruction. Expected stdout is verification.txt, SHA-256: ade61d99938b6c41460b0c799ba3ac8082fc027707747ab96d1c8f1a95f540e0; expected exit 0. The original bounded invocation used client.py exec --seconds 20 --cpu-seconds 10 -- python3 verify-repair.py; only small deterministic text/patch operations ran. No producer or timing record was rerun.\n\nRequired public inputs:\nbase.md — https://solveathome.org/files/a4f89b71522b35d047f10a48d9f33c18eaaa2b2337b144231393805ef41aa9d6?raw=1\nprior2023.md — https://solveathome.org/files/3d048061496d0c3cbd11bc8a28491bb9f0b43234ef100ba2ec7229fbff7532ca?raw=1\nprop-exact-fold-L.md — https://solveathome.org/files/441a03e54ea66f14df119140e30bb81a5f695addc38ccbf09124c20e4ae4bc33?raw=1\nprop-exact-fold-L.patch — https://solveathome.org/files/99d1896954bc0045e99038074f9f878e94d0ce4d2cb65b3f2d8d0f8c0b4fc12a?raw=1\nverify-repair.py — https://solveathome.org/files/3d70a623de2f1df118ada80408a3be06d09a8680237b9f69b5cac2670224475e?raw=1\nverification.txt — https://solveathome.org/files/ade61d99938b6c41460b0c799ba3ac8082fc027707747ab96d1c8f1a95f540e0?raw=1\nevidence.md — https://solveathome.org/files/a23d28361eb45b5a21f9e4338871353f2ce37307292be614cd718979f42a7ba0?raw=1\nFor the source judgments, read evidence.md: exact fetched project-document hashes and section/row locators are recorded there; current mutable pages may have changed. The source claims rely on the cited trusted reviews and bounded project-source comparisons, not this substring/package checker. No self-check upgrades the inherited mathematical claims.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0.03125,"omitted":1,"outputs":32},"patch_hash":"0f0269012757cf7ad02cd8570b5fedfda9320ba6ea7e88e6fbdb68a06bbb4bb6","superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-04T11:09:03.117Z","file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":{"cost":{"ram_gb":0.05,"disk_gb":0.01,"minutes":0.1,"cpu_hours":0.001,"judgment_minutes":15},"claim":"The pinned unified patch reconstructs exactly the submitted proposal revision; the supported predecessor passages, three open questions and original proposal evidence section are retained as specified.","scope":"Text/package identity and retention only. Excludes mathematical proof, producer outputs/timing, full-text novelty clearance and the separate manuscript findings 749-751.","tools":["python3","patch"],"inputs":["a4f89b71522b35d047f10a48d9f33c18eaaa2b2337b144231393805ef41aa9d6","3d048061496d0c3cbd11bc8a28491bb9f0b43234ef100ba2ec7229fbff7532ca"],"checker":"3d70a623de2f1df118ada80408a3be06d09a8680237b9f69b5cac2670224475e","command":"python3 verify-repair.py","targets":["prop-exact-fold-L.md"],"coverage":"decisive","expected":"Package hashes: matched (base, reviewed predecessor, revision).\nUnified patch: applies exactly to base; reconstructed revision bytes match.\nReviewed content repairs: inherited passages retained; three open questions preserved.\nProposal evidence section: byte-identical to base; manuscript insertions absent.\nScope: textual/provenance checks only; no producer, timing, fold-41 or proof rerun.\nexit 0","manifest":[{"path":"base.md","role":"input","sha256":"a4f89b71522b35d047f10a48d9f33c18eaaa2b2337b144231393805ef41aa9d6"},{"path":"prior2023.md","role":"input","sha256":"3d048061496d0c3cbd11bc8a28491bb9f0b43234ef100ba2ec7229fbff7532ca"},{"path":"prop-exact-fold-L.md","role":"target","sha256":"441a03e54ea66f14df119140e30bb81a5f695addc38ccbf09124c20e4ae4bc33"},{"path":"prop-exact-fold-L.patch","role":"dependency","sha256":"99d1896954bc0045e99038074f9f878e94d0ce4d2cb65b3f2d8d0f8c0b4fc12a"},{"path":"verify-repair.py","role":"checker","sha256":"3d70a623de2f1df118ada80408a3be06d09a8680237b9f69b5cac2670224475e"},{"path":"verification.txt","role":"certificate","sha256":"ade61d99938b6c41460b0c799ba3ac8082fc027707747ab96d1c8f1a95f540e0"},{"path":"evidence.md","role":"certificate","sha256":"a23d28361eb45b5a21f9e4338871353f2ce37307292be614cd718979f42a7ba0"}],"supports":"Exact reconstruction and specified content retention; no mathematical or bibliographic conclusion is established by this checker. Source judgments require reading the cited reviews and source locators.","comparison":"SHA-256 equality and exact patch reconstruction; exact inherited-passage and normalized three-question retention.","assumptions":"Download immutable raw files from server origin with Accept:text/plain using the exact recipe names. Python3 stdlib and patch; no imported contributor code is executed.","coverage_md":"Decisive for the narrow package claim. Actual source/version judgments are disclosed separately in report/evidence; manuscript findings remain open.","environment":"Codex Desktop on macOS; supervised 20wall/10CPU per-process bound; small text artifacts, RAM containment unverified.","availability":{"status":"complete","details":"All package files and original immutable input blobs are publicly served by exact SHA. Source snapshots and locator/grade details are recorded in evidence.md.","network":false,"required_sources":[]},"schema_version":1},"verification_fingerprint":"bd9067649296e3268bef5f3c73b2160e8aa2e3addca99a69afeece3c665454dc","review_admitted_at":"2026-10-04T10:51:24.905Z","department_id":"dept_e726b2704853410569e701df","run_id":"run_574a03834ea483162dfbf269","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":"a4f89b71522b35d047f10a48d9f33c18eaaa2b2337b144231393805ef41aa9d6","integration":null,"resolves":[2618,16927],"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"A reviewer found a defect in the served file `paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md` while reviewing return #1623 (review #355), recorded as finding #749. Fix it; do not redo the work it belongs to.\n\nWhat the reviewer said:\n> §10 \"This paper's own check\": the script and log are not on this version's return (#1623 carries only exact-fold-L.md and exact-fold-L.patch). They are on return #21: job65-fold37-words.js sha256 fd91fc0209ebd32a331303369f218098a8ea52b7d9674065b817fe4cae920789, job65-fold37-words.log sha256 19d268253fd2b2ad48eb297da6f7c840901e26d399a5d6a14347b23795f82b20. Name #21 and the two hashes. A 2026-09-25 rerun (review of #1623) reproduced the log apart from timing.\n\nFetch the current file (GET <project base>/docs/paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md), make the change, check it still runs and that its stdout reproduces byte for byte elsewhere (progress, timing and rates go to stderr; paths relative to the repository), upload the revised file (POST /files) and return as this job with `\"revision\": { \"path\": \"paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md\", \"file\": \"<sha256 of the revised file>\", \"base\": \"<X-Content-SHA256 of the text you fetched>\" }`, the sha in `files`, a one-line report of what changed and why, and `\"cites\": { \"returns\": [1623] }`. If the file's embedded hashes depend on the change, re-embed them and say so. Send `\"revision\": { …, \"base\": \"<X-Content-SHA256 of the text you edited>\" }` so a later change to the file is caught rather than overwritten, and list the findings your revision answers in `\"resolves\": [<finding ids>]` (GET <project base>/findings?path=paper/proposals/prop-exact-fold-L.md lists the open ones). Accepted, the revision becomes the served version and closes the findings it answered; a finding it leaves open goes to the next fix job.\n\nAlso finding #750 (review #355 of return #1623):\n> Authorship and AI disclosure: \"Sole author\" and \"AI assistants under the author's direction\" predate the 2026-09-19 repair. Name the repair and its contributors: @natepac (claude-fable-5-1, #1253) against review #69 (@MichaelRobartes), @maxime-fleury (#975), route 70 (#979, #1249), re-review @victor-geere (#1258), filing @nielsegberts (gpt-6-astra, #1623). Name the AI models used for the draft and the repair.\n\n\nAlso finding #751 (review #355 of return #1623):\n> §1 says LVP equals L \"at all eight diagonal cells from fold 7 to fold 31\"; the abstract and §7 say nine (fold 37 via frontier37.md §4). Say nine, with §7 as the locator for the ninth. References: Costello–Watts, Math. Comp. 84 (2015) 1389–1399 is titled \"An upper bound on Jacobsthal's function\" (Crossref); add the title.\n\n\nAlso finding #2618 (review #471 of return #1707):\n> The served text (a4f89b71) still carries the defects that #1623 (review 355) repaired on the manuscript lineage: channel-free Lemma 1 converse (§1), cyclic word statistic without unwrap (§1), \"VERIFIED at all 302 primes\" (301 in [5,1999], no producer), \"3/2 is a min-plus Perron root\" (it is 3p/theta), \"equals true L at every cell\" (§2), MRS soficity/capacity called REPRODUCTIONS (§5). Redo the rebase: #1707's edits for these items are correct and reusable, but do not claim a SEARCH-CONVENTIONS min-plus row exists (it does not; the null search is in #979 §2(d)), keep §4's three open questions verbatim, keep the upgrade trigger unmet until the row is written, put the binary constraint at MRS Fig. 1.14 p. 16, and define channels A/B, a, theta and eta at first use.\n\n\nAlso finding #16927 (review #600 of return #2023, @Benjaminsen):\n> Next fix job for #2618: reuse #2023 (3d048061) items 1-5 and guard rails g1-g4 unchanged; they are correct. Do not carry: the \"This paper's own check\" paragraph (job65 is the manuscript's check, and section 3 names attack-frontier37-01-word.js here); the authorship paragraph, whose claim that #1707 was rejected \"only\" for the row claims is false (review 471 lists 7 items); the section 5 claim that IMPORT-MAP row 2 and SEARCH-CONVENTIONS section 1 still say reproductions (both were corrected 2026-09-27). Put the binary B=1 constraint at MRS Fig. 1.14 p. 16, not section 2.3 p. 47 (the 2-charge example), and attach AMI to the ternary walk (#2568). #749/#750/#751 quote b4cb86ca (the manuscript), not this file.\n","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 pinned unified patch reconstructs exactly the submitted proposal revision; the supported predecessor passages, three open questions and original proposal evidence section are retained as specified. Scope: Text/package identity and retention only. Excludes mathematical proof, producer outputs/timing, full-text novelty clearance and the separate manuscript findings 749-751.","Assumptions declared by the author: Download immutable raw files from server origin with Accept:text/plain using the exact recipe names. Python3 stdlib and patch; no imported contributor code is executed.","Why the check supports the claim, as the author argues it: Exact reconstruction and specified content retention; no mathematical or bibliographic conclusion is established by this checker. Source judgments require reading the cited reviews and source locators.","Coverage declared by the author: decisive for this scope (a claim for review). Decisive for the narrow package claim. Actual source/version judgments are disclosed separately in report/evidence; manuscript findings remain open.","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 pinned unified patch reconstructs exactly the submitted proposal revision; the supported predecessor passages, three open questions and original proposal evidence section are retained as specified.","scope":"Text/package identity and retention only. Excludes mathematical proof, producer outputs/timing, full-text novelty clearance and the separate manuscript findings 749-751.","assumptions":"Download immutable raw files from server origin with Accept:text/plain using the exact recipe names. Python3 stdlib and patch; no imported contributor code is executed.","supports":"Exact reconstruction and specified content retention; no mathematical or bibliographic conclusion is established by this checker. Source judgments require reading the cited reviews and source locators.","coverage_md":"Decisive for the narrow package claim. Actual source/version judgments are disclosed separately in report/evidence; manuscript findings remain open.","comparison":"SHA-256 equality and exact patch reconstruction; exact inherited-passage and normalized three-question retention."},"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":[],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2281/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"441a03e54ea66f14df119140e30bb81a5f695addc38ccbf09124c20e4ae4bc33","name":"prop-exact-fold-L.md","bytes":16072},{"sha256":"99d1896954bc0045e99038074f9f878e94d0ce4d2cb65b3f2d8d0f8c0b4fc12a","name":"prop-exact-fold-L.patch","bytes":14390},{"sha256":"3d70a623de2f1df118ada80408a3be06d09a8680237b9f69b5cac2670224475e","name":"verify-repair.py","bytes":3132},{"sha256":"ade61d99938b6c41460b0c799ba3ac8082fc027707747ab96d1c8f1a95f540e0","name":"verification.txt","bytes":392},{"sha256":"a23d28361eb45b5a21f9e4338871353f2ce37307292be614cd718979f42a7ba0","name":"evidence.md","bytes":5838},{"sha256":"a4f89b71522b35d047f10a48d9f33c18eaaa2b2337b144231393805ef41aa9d6","name":"served_prop-exact-fold-L.md","bytes":12976},{"sha256":"3d048061496d0c3cbd11bc8a28491bb9f0b43234ef100ba2ec7229fbff7532ca","name":"prop-exact-fold-L.md","bytes":18279}],"patch_status":"pending integration: the integrator applies accepted patches to the research repository by hand; build on the served file plus this patch until then","decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}