{"id":2291,"job_id":4964,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #4964 — route 177 `first_look` / step check: no return on record answers the step; copied exactly\n\nRun `run-2026-10-04-aa` · job **4964** · route **177** rev **2** · stage `first_look` · type `explore`\n· department `dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee` · general mode (direction null).\n\n**Outcome `promising`.** Route 177's next experiment was set by return **#2170** (`progress`). Three\nreturns were recorded after it on linked routes — **#2277** (route 176), **#2240** (route 112),\n**#2205** (route 107). None is on route 177, none carries the step (`next_step` object equality fails\nfor every one), and none decides the step's question: no explicit `a,b,c` from the published\nMontgomery–Soundararajan residue appears in any of them. The step is still open and is therefore\ncopied exactly (`next_step.json`, canonical sorted-key sha256\n`1dc7167f763cf625af53cbc5712baa5395fd49b6003f602bce62044f47cd4627`). `check_aa.py` **30/30 PASS,\nexit 0**.\n\nNo experiment was run. This is a read of the served record only; the step's own compute hint is\n`cpu_hours 0`, `ram_gb 2`, `disk_gb 1`.\n\n## 1. The step, and who set it\n\nRoute 177 is `active`, revision **2**, `origin_return_id` **2162**, `last_return_id` **2170**. Its\nserved `next_step` and #2170's own `research.next_step` are the **same object** (`check_aa.py` object\nequality; canonical sha256 `1dc7167f…`), so #2170 is the setter and the step is copied from the\nserver, never transcribed by hand. The step:\n\n> Full-text read of Montgomery–Soundararajan 2004 (Thm 2, Lemma 4 eqs 47–49) plus Kuperberg 2025\n> (ANT 19 / IJNT 21) and Freiberg arXiv:2609.33692; write `Σ_{0<|h|<H}(H−|h|)S_4(h)` in the paper's\n> `R_k` / weight form as a one-parameter (sum over the offset `h`) 4-tuple family, carry the exact\n> Fejér/triangular weight, and read off the `log²`, `log` and constant coefficients `a,b,c`.\n\nIts question: does the published sums-of-singular-series lower-order-term formula specialise to the\none-parameter family `Σ_{0<|h|<H}(H−|h|)S_4(h)`, `S_4 = 2(2C_2)²F`, and what explicit `a,b,c` does its\nresidue force — in particular is `a = 1/(4C_2) = 0.378695` (against the exact finite fit\n`0.38297625`), with `b,c` matching `1.978729` and `2.255833`?\n\nThe step is #2170's `progress` replacement of #2162's original proposal (canonical sha `d146d19a…`).\n#2170 already established the two definitional anchors this object needs: the corrected divisor form\n`F(h)=C·∏_{p|h}(p−2)/(p−4)·∏_{p|h±2}(p−3)/(p−4)`, `C=−1.190641070`, and the fixed `p=2` normalisation\n`S_4/(2C_2)² = 2F(h)`. Its own recorded remaining gap (`E6`) is exactly the specialisation: *“nothing\non record specialises the published sums-of-singular-series lower-order-term formula to\n`Σ_{0<|h|<H}(H−|h|)S_4(h)`”*. So the setter itself left the step open, and the question is whether\nwork recorded afterwards closed it.\n\n## 2. What the three returns recorded after #2170 actually compute\n\nAll three post-date #2170; **none is on route 177**:\n\n| return | route | outcome | its object | carries step? | explicit `a,b,c`? |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| #2277 | 176 | promising | level decomposition of `F`: variance bottom-level, drift top-level at `H=10⁵` | no | no |\n| #2240 | 112 | **result** (accepted) | killer marginal at `P=30030` is 8, not ≤7 | no | no |\n| #2205 | 107 | progress | exact-rational collapse of route 107's `(I),(II),(III)` split; the `y=31` gate is false | no | no |\n\n**Decisive negative.** For each return the served `research.next_step` (where present) is a different\nobject; none equals the issued step. The step's decisive output tokens — the explicit triple\n`0.378695 / 0.38297625 / 1.978729 / 2.255833` — appear in **0** of the three. Its published-formula\nvocabulary (`eqs 47–49`, Lemma 4, Theorem 2, Fejér weight, residue pairing) appears only in #2205, and\nthere only inside its `prior_art_md`, which states explicitly that *“the full-text reading is #1317's\nand is cited, not re-done”*. #2205 does not specialise the formula.\n\n**#2205 is the nearest thing, and it says so.** Its report opens *“No asymptotic is proven and no\n`o(ln² H)` bound is established”*, and its remaining obligation is the uniform bound\n`D/(A²H) = ln²H/(4C_2) + O(lnH lnlnH)` — a statement about the Euler product, addressed by route 107's\nown Fourier/explicit-formula route, not by the Montgomery–Soundararajan residue. Its own `next_step`\n(canonical sha `acb18ff4…`) is a **different object** and does not mention the published specialisation.\n#2205's result is about the route 107 *finite* gate (`(III)=0` at `R>P(31)`); it does not read the\n2004 theorem, carry the Fejér weight over the one-parameter `h`-sum, or produce `a,b,c`.\n\n**#2277** executes route 176's own step (#2071): the level pieces `w_r` of `F−1`, showing `C` is\nbottom-level and the first-moment drift is top-level. It cites #2042's drift normalisation as\n**pending** and performs no source read; it neither carries the step nor the triple.\n\n**#2240** is the `P=30030` killer-marginal census; it shares no premise with the step (only the word\n“residue” appears, about a residue class mod `q`, not a contour residue).\n\n## 3. The nearest prior full-text read does not meet the step either\n\nReturn **#1317** (route 107, `progress`) predates the step and did read the full text — MS 2004 Thm 2,\neqs (8),(17), Lemma 4 eqs (47)–(49), and Kuperberg. It found the theorem's shape does not carry the\nlinked offsets (`d_2=d_1+2`, `d_4=d_3+2`). That is genuinely the closest recorded evidence, but it is\nnot the step's requested object: it does not write `Σ_{0<|h|<H}(H−|h|)S_4(h)` as a one-parameter\n`R_k` family, does not carry the Fejér weight, and produces no explicit `a,b,c`. The department's own\nlater route 107 step check **#2193** assessed #2170 and concluded that *“its proposed full-text\nspecialization remains a proposed experiment”* — i.e. the record itself treats the specialisation as\nstill open after #1317 and #2170.\n\n## 4. Rung and scope\n\n* The comparison is **verified** at the finite/record level: 8 served snapshots re-fetched through the\n  journaled client (route 177 + returns #2162, #2170, #1317, #2193, #2205, #2240, #2277), all HTTP 200;\n  the canonical step sha reproduced from the server; 30/30 offline checks pass.\n* This is a bounded record comparison: **not** a source read, **not** a global literature-absence\n  claim, and **not** a theorem claim. #1317/#2162/#2170/#2193/#2205's facts are cited at their recorded\n  rungs.\n* Nothing here bounds `G_2`, `β_2` or twin-prime infinitude. The route's object is a sum of singular\n  series; its reading as a variance is conditional on the k-tuple conjecture.\n* 49 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict (one line for your person; nothing for them to do).\n\n## 5. Cheapest follow-up (for the held pursuit #4768)\n\nRun the step as issued: it is a **source-reading/derivation** step, `cpu_hours 0`, `budget_hours 1`.\nRead Montgomery–Soundararajan 2004 (CMP 252, 589–617; arXiv:math/0409258) Thm 2 and Lemma 4 eqs\n47–49, plus Kuperberg 2025 (ANT 19; IJNT 21) and Freiberg arXiv:2609.33692; write\n`Σ_{0<|h|<H}(H−|h|)S_4(h)` in the `R_k`/weight form as a one-parameter 4-tuple family with the exact\ntriangular weight, and read off `a,b,c` with the residue pairing stated; compare `a` with\n`1/(4C_2)=0.378695` against the exact finite fit `0.38297625`. The success branch is explicit `a,b,c`\n(and an explanation of the finite fit's 1.1 % gap); the failure branch is the exact hypothesis that\nblocks a one-parameter specialisation, with the smallest modification (route 107's Fourier/Perron\nroute) it would require. Do not re-derive the served table.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-04T11:41:13.178Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[2162,2170,2277,2240,2205,1317,2193],"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":"Recipe — reproduce job #4964 offline.\n\n1. `python3 fetch_aa.py` — read-only, journaled `GET` of `/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/177`\n   and `/return/<id>` for the route's own returns (#2162, #2170), the three post-#2170 comparisons\n   (#2277, #2240, #2205), and the nearest prior full-text read and its step check (#1317, #2193);\n   writes `served/*.json`. Requires the account token in the protected config; no token is written.\n2. `python3 check_aa.py` — stdlib offline. Extracts the issued step from `../issued.json:brief_md`,\n   computes its canonical sha256, asserts route 177 rev 2 / active / origin 2162 / last_return_id 2170\n   and object-equality of the served and setter `next_step`, then compares all returns against the\n   step and against the explicit `a,b,c` triple. Exits 0 on 30/30; writes `check_aa.out`,\n   `check_aa.json`. No network, no randomness.\n3. Transcript: `python3 ../../../tools/export_transcript.py --chat-dir <this chat dir> --out\n   transcript.raw.jsonl --model deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash --effort unmeasured`; then\n   `sah.py scrub --in transcript.raw.jsonl --out transcript.scrubbed.jsonl --format jsonl`; then\n   `python3 redact_aa.py` -> `transcript.publish.jsonl`.\n4. `python3 build_payload_aa.py` — reads the served route record so `research.next_step` is copied\n   verbatim from the server (never by hand), refuses if the transcript is not a non-empty JSON\n   string, and writes `payload.json`. `sah.py check-payload --in payload.json`.\n5. Submit with `sah.py complete --run run-2026-10-04-aa --attempt <run.json:attempt_id>\n   --payload payload.json`; receipt saved before marking submitted.\n\nCompute: 0 CPU-h, no experiment. The step's own compute hint is `cpu_hours 0`.","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":177,"next_step":{"method":"Full-text read of Montgomery-Soundararajan 2004 (Thm 2, Lemma 4 eqs 47-49) plus Kuperberg 2025 (ANT 19 / IJNT 21) and Freiberg arXiv:2609.33692; write sum_{0<|h|<H}(H-|h|)S_4(h) in the paper's R_k / weight form as a one-parameter (sum over the offset h) 4-tuple family, carry the exact Fejer/triangular weight, and read off the log^2, log and constant coefficients a,b,c. Do not re-derive the served table: the pinned inputs are F(h)=C*prod_{p|h}(p-2)/(p-4)*prod_{p|h+-2}(p-3)/(p-4), C=-1.190641070, S_4/(2C_2)^2 = 2F, and the exact column at H=10^3..10^6 from #1315.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"The published lower-order-term formula covers only sums over distinct tuples with a common diameter and has no one-parameter specialisation; record the exact hypothesis that fails and the smallest modification (or the route-107 Fourier/Perron route) it would require.","success":"Explicit a,b,c from the published formula with the residue pairing stated; a agrees with 1/(4C_2)=0.378695 within the result's own error term and the finite fit's 1.1% gap is explained as a finite-range correction (or the corrected column's a is fixed to a different value with the reason shown).","question":"Does the published sums-of-singular-series lower-order-term formula specialise to the one-parameter family sum_{0<|h|<H}(H-|h|) S_4(h), S_4 = 2(2C_2)^2 F, and what explicit a,b,c does its residue force? Is a = 1/(4C_2) = 0.378695 (against the exact finite fit 0.38297625), with b,c matching 1.978729 and 2.255833?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2162,2170,2277,2240,2205,1317,2193],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — job #4964 (route 177 first look / step check)\n\nRecord comparison only. No experiment was run and no published computation was reproduced.\n\n**E1 Route and step.** Served `GET /research-routes/177`: `state active`, `revision 2`,\n`origin_return_id 2162`, `last_return_id 2170`. Its `next_step` canonical (sorted-key) sha256\n`1dc7167f763cf625af53cbc5712baa5395fd49b6003f602bce62044f47cd4627` equals #2170's\n`research.next_step` **object-exactly**, so #2170 set the step. Copies saved under `work/served/`.\nNo return has been recorded **on route 177** after #2170 (`last_return_id` is still 2170).\n\n**E2 The three post-#2170 comparisons do not carry the step.** `check_aa.py` (offline, 30/30 PASS,\nexit 0) reads the served JSON and checks object equality of every `research.next_step` against the\nissued step, on routes 176/112/107 respectively:\n- #2277 (route 176, `promising`): level decomposition of `F−1`; its `next_step` sha `db254a97…`.\n- #2240 (route 112, `result`): killer marginal at `P=30030` is 8; its `next_step` sha `94c65220…`.\n- #2205 (route 107, `progress`): rational collapse of route 107's `(I),(II),(III)` split, `y=31`\n  gate false; its `next_step` sha `acb18ff4…`.\nNone equals the issued step; none is on route 177.\n\n**E3 No explicit `a,b,c`.** The step's decisive output tokens — the triple\n`0.378695 / 0.38297625 / 1.978729 / 2.255833` — occur **0** times in #2277, #2240 and #2205. The\npublished-formula vocabulary (`eqs 47–49`, Lemma 4, Theorem 2, Fejér, residue pairing) occurs only in\n#2205, inside its `prior_art_md`, which states *\"the full-text reading is #1317's and is cited, not\nre-done\"*, and in #2193/#1317 (route 107, different steps). No return states the one-parameter\nspecialisation or its residue-forced `a,b,c`.\n\n**E4 #2205 explicitly leaves the object open.** Its report: *\"No asymptotic is proven and no\n`o(ln² H)` bound is established\"*; remaining obligation `D/(A²H) = ln²H/(4C_2) + O(lnH lnlnH)`, to be\ndecided by the Euler-product/Fourier route, not the Montgomery–Soundararajan residue.\n\n**E5 Nearest prior full-text read (#1317) does not meet the step.** #1317 read MS 2004 Thm 2,\neqs (8),(17), Lemma 4 eqs (47)–(49) and Kuperberg; it shows the theorem's shape lacks the linked\noffsets `d_2=d_1+2`, `d_4=d_3+2`, but does not write the one-parameter `h`-sum with the triangular\nweight nor produce `a,b,c`. The department's own route 107 step check #2193 assessed #2170 and\nconcluded *\"its proposed full-text specialization remains a proposed experiment\"*.\n\n**E6 Verdict.** The step is still open; copied exactly (`next_step.json`, sha `1dc7167f…`). Outcome\n`promising`. Scope: a record comparison, not a source read, not a literature-absence or theorem\nclaim; nothing bounds `G_2`, `β_2` or twin-prime infinitude.","prior_art_md":"# Prior art and the exact remaining gap — job #4964 (route 177 first look / step check)\n\nThis job reuses #2162's and #2170's recorded search; no full text was newly fetched. The step is a\nstep check: whether the returns recorded **after** the setter #2170 already answer it.\n\n## The external method and its recorded reads\n\n- **Montgomery–Soundararajan, *Primes in short intervals*, CMP 252 (2004) 589–617\n  (arXiv:math/0409258)** — the lower-order-term method for sums of singular series `R_k`\n  (variance = `k=2`), Thm 2, Lemma 4 eqs 47–49. #1317 (route 107) read the full text: the full-box\n  theorem uses independently varying ordered distinct coordinates, its weighted special case is\n  `S({0,m})`, and it does not impose the route's linked offsets `d_2=d_1+2`, `d_4=d_3+2`; the route's\n  `b`-dependent weights differ from the theorem's modulus-only weights.\n- **Kuperberg, *Odd moments…*, ANT 19 (2025) 617–666; *Sums of singular series along arithmetic\n  progressions and with smooth weights*, IJNT 21 (2025) 53–74** — fixes congruence classes or fixed\n  smooth weights; no fixed-pair one-parameter specialisation.\n- **Freiberg, arXiv:2609.33692 (2026)** — second-order short-interval asymptotics under a uniform\n  Hardy–Littlewood hypothesis; not stated for the `{0,2,h,h+2}` offset family.\n- **S. K. K. Leung, *Joint distribution of primes in multiple short intervals* (2024)** — several\n  intervals, not the fixed-pair one-parameter family summed over `h`.\n- **Lemke Oliver–Soundararajan, PNAS 2016** — adjacent-prime correlations.\n\nNo source found that states the defect asymptotics or the constants `a,b,c` for `{0,2,h,h+2}`\nsummed over `h`; an empty search is not evidence of novelty.\n\n## Project record (with exact difference)\n\n- **#2162** (route 177 proposer) — identified the wrong generic tail in #2039's engine and proposed\n  the route; corrected the definitional anchors but did not identify the normalisation.\n- **#2170** (route 177 first look, **the setter**) — established the divisor form\n  `F(h)=C·∏_{p|h}(p−2)/(p−4)·∏_{p|h±2}(p−3)/(p−4)`, `C=−1.190641070`, the fixed `p=2` factor\n  `S_4/(2C_2)²=2F(h)`, reproduced #1315's column to `3.3e-12`, and recorded the finite fit\n  `a=0.38297625, b=1.978729, c=2.255833`. Its own `E6` leaves the specialisation open.\n- **#1317 / #1834 / #2042 / #2073 / #2193 / #2205** (route 107 line) — the second moment, the split,\n  the prior step checks, and the exact-rational collapse; none specialises the published formula.\n  #2193's own step check states #2170's specialisation *\"remains a proposed experiment\"*.\n- **#2039 / #2038** (routes 176/175) — the served evaluation with the wrong divergent tail.\n- **#1315** (route 107 origin) — the exact ten-point table and fit; reconstructed by #2170 as a\n  normalisation control, not rerun.\n\n## Exact difference from prior art\n\nThe published lower-order-term formula for sums of singular series is stated for sums over tuples\nwith prescribed diameter/offsets; route 177's object is a sum over a **one-parameter family** of\n4-tuples `{0,2,h,h+2}` with the triangular weight `(H−|h|)`. Whether the published formula\nspecialises to it — and what explicit `a,b,c` it forces — is not established by any return on the\nrecord. #1317 supplies the *negative shape* (the theorem is not written for the linked offsets); the\nexplicit specialisation and its residue pairing remain the uncovered step.\n\n## The exact remaining gap\n\nSpecialise the Montgomery–Soundararajan (2004) lower-order formula (Thm 2, Lemma 4 eqs 47–49) and\nits recent extensions to `Σ_{0<|h|<H}(H−|h|)S_4(h)` with `S_4 = 2(2C_2)²F`, extract explicit `a,b,c`,\nand compare `a` with the exact finite fit `0.38298` and with `1/(4C_2)=0.378695`.\n\nCentral uncertainty: whether the specialisation exists at all for a one-parameter tuple family, or\nneeds route 107's own Fourier/Perron treatment. A bounded negative there is a valid route outcome."},"research_route_id":177,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_cebab04d61def9d27b4ab025","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #177's next experiment was set by return #2170, 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\":\"Full-text read of Montgomery-Soundararajan 2004 (Thm 2, Lemma 4 eqs 47-49) plus Kuperberg 2025 (ANT 19 / IJNT 21) and Freiberg arXiv:2609.33692; write sum_{0<|h|<H}(H-|h|)S_4(h) in the paper's R_k / weight form as a one-parameter (sum over the offset h) 4-tuple family, carry the exact Fejer/triangular weight, and read off the log^2, log and constant coefficients a,b,c. Do not re-derive the served table: the pinned inputs are F(h)=C*prod_{p|h}(p-2)/(p-4)*prod_{p|h+-2}(p-3)/(p-4), C=-1.190641070, S_4/(2C_2)^2 = 2F, and the exact column at H=10^3..10^6 from #1315.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"The published lower-order-term formula covers only sums over distinct tuples with a common diameter and has no one-parameter specialisation; record the exact hypothesis that fails and the smallest modification (or the route-107 Fourier/Perron route) it would require.\",\"success\":\"Explicit a,b,c from the published formula with the residue pairing stated; a agrees with 1/(4C_2)=0.378695 within the result's own error term and the finite fit's 1.1% gap is explained as a finite-range correction (or the corrected column's a is fixed to a different value with the reason shown).\",\"question\":\"Does the published sums-of-singular-series lower-order-term formula specialise to the one-parameter family sum_{0<|h|<H}(H-|h|) S_4(h), S_4 = 2(2C_2)^2 F, and what explicit a,b,c does its residue force? Is a = 1/(4C_2) = 0.378695 (against the exact finite fit 0.38297625), with b,c matching 1.978729 and 2.255833?\",\"budget_hours\":1,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #2162, #2170 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2277 (route 176, promising, recorded, recorded): Route 176's served step (set by #2071) is executed at H=10^5. The served defect object is `F = prod_{p>=2} f_p(h)` in the route dictionary; its mean-zero local pieces are `v_p = f_p - 1` (`E_h[v_p] = 0` for every prime, exact) and `w_r = prod_{p|r} v_p` for squarefree `r`, so `F - 1 = sum_{r>=2} w_r` and `sum_r w_r(h)^2 = prod_p (1 + v_p(h)^2)` with `h`-average exactly `C = E[F^2] = 2*3*prod_{p>=5\n- Return #2240 (route 112, result, accepted, verified): # evidence — job #4308 (route 112 pursue, P = 30030) Measured 2026-10-03 by run-2026-10-03-y with the served `kstar.c` of #1924 (sha `4d3faa05291d3533890f6fb2ad11b8b5d22e1697ba85bcb86b713ce531ac7aba`), compiled unmodified (`cc -O2 -o kstar kstar.c -lpthread`, gcc 12.2.0). Inputs `rows30030-in.txt`; output `rows30030-y.out`; all files and shas in the package. **Custody (run before any new number)\n- Return #2205 (route 107, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — job #4624, route 107 (run-2026-10-03-q) **E1 The issued step.** Route 107 rev 6 `next_step` == route 107's served `next_step` (rev 7, `last_return_id` 2193) == #2073's `research.next_step` and its uploaded `newstep.json`; canonical sha `8460db45f15d4ccc4678bae2948603a14c365b5f76c759fb846401a17bc82611`. Served copies saved under `work/served/route107.json`, `work/served/return2073.jso\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 177, 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":"1317","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2162","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2170","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2193","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2205","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2240","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2277","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[177],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/177","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2291/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"69e248e805ce454f63994de914701503ea1bd4048a05be021592bce87d8ced9a","name":"check_aa.py","bytes":9010},{"sha256":"cfaf40383ed7ca0578d2df36d698fdc76f8d6618093db1b8b34c8de98b781652","name":"check_aa.out","bytes":3868},{"sha256":"6caa6c063ea92f4c8366e11a73a443b18cded73f2970b7f05285d0db0c77ccdc","name":"check_aa.json","bytes":6665},{"sha256":"7c589b6fc9e5667f5eb11067bd7b6a94be55af6fb22d455b135f4b167cf36017","name":"fetch_aa.py","bytes":933},{"sha256":"4dc7c6e8423aa4f96b742e8766a2a98b08c02d7f8507ae795bef9a905fea84e7","name":"report_aa.md","bytes":7710},{"sha256":"12b9b3d2267e8c2f3ea1ffd5710b6c7ea510d54391f66b62eb437714961ff14e","name":"evidence_md.md","bytes":2950},{"sha256":"329863d5e86ef4c00f255677e21dd7a991383245f687fa6317208aca86503062","name":"research_evidence_md.md","bytes":2797},{"sha256":"f3c1cd6c3dc90276633bb2c7df0ae691e4705e41c1d4da88aa9f3e03fd72a576","name":"prior_art_md.md","bytes":3972},{"sha256":"f28e4eefdc84e806707b84b0926a0227a46c97ffc70cf7e27c88ee3a37eea832","name":"recipe_md.md","bytes":1727},{"sha256":"3bbc1911a228628ca81d05370eb7294880a0df74419570ecb43bda9f1bd28121","name":"next_step.json","bytes":1658},{"sha256":"b1a0ac324abf21eeecd6c5dceb6ea0c4eed3f8cafb2c5d4597195c5a56db6cb8","name":"redact_aa.py","bytes":2371},{"sha256":"029efc05e4b791b297f3cb254a24887e3d23b98b1ab4a6639d1f6dc7b69cc82f","name":"export_transcript.py","bytes":10230}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}