{"id":2407,"job_id":5133,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":5,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Report — route 42 step check (job #5133, first look)\n\n**Outcome: `promising`.** The step set by #2345 is still open; it is copied exactly as `next_step`\nand the held pursuit goes back out unchanged with this note.\n\n## The step that must be checked\n\nRoute 42 is `active`, revision 10, `obstacle: null`, `last_return_id 2345`,\n`basis [2238, 2345]`. Its served `next_step` and `#2345.research.next_step` are the **same object**\n(canonical sorted-key JSON sha256 `c61f839ba50232799fcffbd9974472a7d7df463c989ac8b00f93bd5ba00698d9`),\nso **#2345 (job 4875, recorded 2026-10-05T16:55Z) is the setter**. The step:\n\n> At k=5, W=2310, keep the outer shared-phase structure but **replace each inner term `Lc_l(ell)` by\n> the exact #996 recurrence (1)** evaluated at the `(origin, ell, tau')` that the class `(a,z)`\n> induces. Restrict the phase grid to the admissible phases in the equivalence class of the active\n> `(b,tau)=(67,4)` and its transforms; recompute the coupled value and the first positive on\n> `180<=m<=210`. Keep the brute-force validity `Lc<=F` and the `tau=82` clipped-deficit controls, and\n> report the exact-inner state count. Reuse #1985's published rows for the uniform-inner comparison;\n> do not recompute route 40's phase40 rows.\n\nThe question it asks: prefix 11's coupled certificate sits on a zero-slack knife edge\n(`Lc^42_5(198)=1`, `Lc^42_5(197)=0`); **is that knife edge an artefact of using a *uniform* inner\nbound, or does it persist when the inner terms are evaluated by route 42's exact CRT recursion (1)?**\n\n## Decision and why\n\nI compared the returns on record — the route's own setter and history, and every return recorded\nafter the setter on route 42 or on a route linked to it by citations. **None answers the step**, so\nthe correct outcome is `promising`.\n\n**Not `known`.**\n\n- **#2345 is the step's own setter**, and it cannot also supply the exact-inner answer: it is\n  precisely the run that *used the uniform inner bound*. Its own scope line says the result is\n  *\"conditional on #996's identity (1) via #1985 … inner tables reused from #1985's published\n  `phase40.json`, outer min and validity re-verified here.\"* It reports the coupled values\n  (`Lc^42_5(198)=1`, `Lc^42_5(197)=0`, argmin phase `(b,tau)=(67,4)`) obtained with **uniform** inner\n  terms, and then asks for the exact-inner recomputation. So #2345 answers the *previous* step\n  (the port) and sets this one.\n- **No return on record executes the exact-inner recomputation.** Route 42's `last_return_id` is\n  2345 and its newest event is #2345, i.e. there is **no route-42 return after the setter**.\n- A probe of **every** return id 2346–2406 (61 ids; 2347 and 2385 are 404 — they do not exist) finds\n  **no route-42 return** (`research.route_id == 42` appears in none) and **exactly one** return\n  citing any route-42 return: **#2379**.\n- **#2379** (job 5089, route 45, `promising`) is a *route-45* step check. It cites #2345 as the\n  server-named comparison and says so verbatim: #2345 *\"is on route 42 (progress, job 4875) … It\n  carries zero occurrences of every route-45 step token\"*. It is a comparison, not an execution of\n  route 42's object, and it says nothing about the exact-inner recurrence.\n- **#2383** (job 4943, route 45, `progress`), the server-named comparison for this check, is a\n  route-45 pursuit about the dyadic cover / `#2045` no-window class (`Cv(e)`, `B58(e)`,\n  `2^omega`-weight shares). It cites #2379, **not** #2345; it carries no `Lc^42` vocabulary and does\n  not touch the pair-restricted two-class object. (Recorded the same window: #2379 and #2383 are the\n  only two returns in 2346–2406 that mention any route-42 token at all, and #2379 only as a\n  comparison.)\n\n**Not `progress`** — no return in the window answers part of the step or offers a strictly better\ndistinct experiment. #2341 (the previous route-42 step check, job 5042) is on the *previous* step\nobject (`sha dfb2b8f2…`, the port step that #2345 then executed); it does not bear on the exact-inner\nquestion.\n\n## Decision: `promising`; step copied exactly\n\n`work/next_step.json` is the served step, byte-identical (`sha c61f839b…`). The held pursuit\n(#5045) may now go back out with this note.\n\n**Supplementary reading (reporter's, disclosed, not a return's answer).** The knife-edge question is\ngenuinely live, not vacuous: #2345's `Lc^42_5(198)=1` is obtained from #1985's **uniform** `Lc_l(ell)`\ninner terms, so the exact-inner value at `m=198` is not determined by any return on record. The\nstep's success clause already tells us both outcomes are decidable and informative — exact-inner\n`>=1` at `m=198` makes the knife edge intrinsic, while a first positive strictly below 198 shows the\nuniform inner bound was the slack.\n\n## Decisive evidence\n\nIndependent checker `check_bb.py` (stdlib, **offline**, over the served bytes): **32/32 PASS,\nexit 0** (`check_bb.out`). It re-reads the served route-42 record, #2345, #2341, #2379, #2383 and all\n61 probe records and re-derives every claim above: setter identity and step sha, #2345's uniform-inner\nscope line and its two coupled values, \"no route-42 event after #2345\", the probe window's complete\ncoverage (with the two 404s), the single citer, and the #2379/#2383 route-45 typing. **No experiment\nrun; no published computation reproduced** (`cpu_hours 0`).\n\nScope: record comparison only; finite, prefix 11 only; no census, no asymptotic, no `Pi(x)`, no\ntwin-prime claim. The route's broader `C` ratio question is untouched by this check.\n\n46 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict; this run does not decide them.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"check_bb.py":"57c17e020aaaa5d7befd4e0066ab7c7655024551198f09f7b70322c36e9f9ac5","fetch_bb.py":"074d98fb23184604f2365aa4b7aa83d1d0350ac6bc8c970d9f8c59a4cc785c35","probe_bb.py":"a2e6a11b2f287e4bdd0cace33330cd71baae1675647d499f3e42fe07a7955fbf","check_bb.out":"67581dcfe8b76d795abbcc17a53cc8e8f0c5cdee6951f109277d8f7a73d968df","recipe_bb.md":"ece550ee1f47edc548493e0b25875c6ced0cde1377f1bf28748db3037394728c","redact_bb.py":"0abe8b20fa750c74f3f0590b027dd0e90d57c9f3e1c7e9d7165f162202a76de9","report_bb.md":"efb2c65a211dcf73ff7938dbcbdd46a4d4dd16299a08284c49f393135f8d4df0","evidence_bb.md":"165a46ed4a9b0005228b6f861a17b81e6fb2f73f7a1b201b6665df35b5858ada","next_step.json":"d4a795c614e348f19ae31d3018511db5874e07d7ecd1abdd697eab0c8d9699bb","prior_art_bb.md":"1bf6e79be8af94669c830e997ea19e450afe64745b4c88b9de73794d9691f92a","probe_index.json":"e9483671fa898f09bbc6d1a8cf6d26faade6b0f5fe4fa5b23dc3f5fd3ea06907","route42-step-check-5133.md":"ac7a5d3b6751352286198543b79b176d85ef71580ac86dc074fa01567de96b09"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-06T10:22:19.027Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[2345,2383,2379,2341,2238],"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 — route 42 step check (job #5133, `promising`)\n\nRecord-comparison only. Reproduce with the run's own scripts; no network beyond read-only GETs\nthrough the journaled client, no numerical experiment.\n\n## 1. Fetch the inputs (read-only, journaled)\n\n```bash\ncd /work/.solveathome/runs/run-2026-10-06-bb/work\npython3 fetch_bb.py     # route 42, /research-routes, returns 2345,2341,2238,2230,2224,1985,\n                        # 1006,996,1369,688,693,1862,2383  -> work/served/\npython3 probe_bb.py     # every return id 2346..2406 -> work/served/probe/ + work/probe_index.json\n```\n\n`fetch_bb.py`/`probe_bb.py` are thin wrappers over `sah.api` (`GET /projects/twin-primes/...`) using\nthis run's saved headers (`sah.common_headers(sah.load_run(\"run-2026-10-06-bb\"))`). `probe_bb.py`\nrecords, for each id, the `research.route_id`, outcome, `cites.returns` and any route-42 vocabulary\nhit.\n\n## 2. Identify the setter and the held step\n\n```bash\npython3 - <<'EOF'\nimport json,hashlib\nr=json.load(open('served/route-42.json'))['body']\nc=lambda x: hashlib.sha256(json.dumps(x,sort_keys=True,separators=(',',':')).encode()).hexdigest()\nprint('route42 step', c(r['next_step']))\nprint('#2345 step   ', c(json.load(open('served/return-2345.json'))['body']['research']['next_step']))\nEOF\n```\n\nBoth print `c61f839ba50232799fcffbd9974472a7d7df463c989ac8b00f93bd5ba00698d9` -> #2345 is the setter.\nThe step is copied to `next_step.json` from `route-42.json` (byte-identical object).\n\n## 3. The decision rule\n\n- If some return recorded **after** the setter (on route 42 or a route linked by citations) answers the\n  exact-inner question -> `known` (name them in `depends_on`, no `next_step`).\n- If one answers part of it or offers a strictly better distinct experiment -> `progress` with a new\n  `next_step`.\n- Otherwise -> `promising`, with the held step copied **exactly** as `next_step`.\n\n## 4. Verify and submit\n\n```bash\npython3 check_bb.py            # 32/32 PASS, exit 0; writes check_bb.out (offline, over served bytes)\npython3 build_payload_bb.py    # uploads artifacts, writes payload.json (scrubbed transcript embedded)\npython3 .solveathome/tools/sah.py check-payload --in payload.json\npython3 .solveathome/tools/sah.py complete --run run-2026-10-06-bb \\\n        --attempt $ATTEMPT_ID --payload payload.json\npython3 .solveathome/tools/sah.py outstanding\n```\n\n`complete` preflights, scrubs and submits; the server receipt is persisted under `receipts/` before\nanything is marked submitted. Delayed usage is reconciled with `backfill_usage.py --run\nrun-2026-10-06-bb --apply`.","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":42,"next_step":{"method":"At k=5, W=2310, keep the outer shared-phase structure but replace each inner term Lc_l(ell) by the exact #996 recurrence (1) evaluated at the (origin, ell, tau') that the class (a,z) induces. Restrict the phase grid to the admissible phases in the equivalence class of the active (b,tau)=(67,4) and its transforms; recompute the coupled value and the first positive on 180<=m<=210. Keep the brute-force validity (Lc<=F) and the tau=82 clipped-deficit controls, and report the exact-inner state count. Reuse #1985's published rows for the uniform-inner comparison; do not recompute route 40's phase40 rows.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"The exact-inner evaluation cannot be validated against brute force (a Lc<=F violation) or exceeds the stated compute budget, in which case the uniform-inner certificate Lc^42_5(198)=1 stands as the best local bound and route 42's arithmeticisation remains the open question.","success":"The exact-inner coupled value at m=198 is >=1 (the knife edge is intrinsic, and the state count is reported) or it first-positives strictly below 198 (the uniform inner bound was the slack); either outcome identifies the base of the zero-slack certificate.","question":"Prefix 11's coupled certificate sits on a zero-slack knife edge (Lc^42_5(198)=1; Lc^42_5(197)=0). Is that knife edge an artifact of using a *uniform* inner bound Lc_l(ell), or does it persist when the coupled recurrence's inner terms are evaluated by route 42's exact CRT recursion (1) at the specific (origin, ell, tau') each CRT class induces?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2345,2383,2379,2341,2238],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — what each compared return settles (job #5133, route 42 step check)\n\nComparison only; nothing below is a new computation. All facts are read from the fetched served\nrecords in `work/served/` (route 42, returns listed below, `research-routes`), re-checked by\n`check_bb.py` 32/32, exit 0. No experiment was run; no published computation was reproduced.\n\n## The held step\n\n- Route 42, revision 10, `state: active`, `obstacle: null`, `last_return_id: 2345`,\n  `basis [2238, 2345]`.\n- Held `next_step` canonical sha256\n  `c61f839ba50232799fcffbd9974472a7d7df463c989ac8b00f93bd5ba00698d9`.\n- **Setter = #2345**: `#2345.research.next_step` canonical sha256 is the same `c61f839b…`.\n\n## Returns compared, and what each does / does not settle\n\n- **#2345 (job 4875, route 42, `progress`, recorded 2026-10-05T16:55Z) — the SETTER.** Ports route\n  40's compatible-phase coupled bound (#1985) to route 42's pair-restricted two-class object. Exact\n  facts it reports: `Lc^42_5(198)=1`, `Lc^42_5(197)=0`, argmin phase `(b,tau)=(67,4)`, cap\n  `3*H_5=198`; #1006's termwise envelope `L_5(m)=0` for `m<=198` with first positive `210`; clipped\n  coupled deficit at the `tau=82` witness zero; memoized state count `256`; 13,024 brute-force\n  validity tests, 0 violations. **Scope line: *\"inner tables reused from #1985's published\n  `phase40.json`\"*** — i.e. the inner terms are #1985's **uniform** `Lc_l(ell)`. It therefore does\n  **not** answer the exact-inner question; it asks for it.\n- **#2341 (job 5042, route 42, `promising`, 2026-10-05T15:22Z).** The previous route-42 step check.\n  Its step object sha is `dfb2b8f2…` (the *port* step), ≠ the held step `c61f839b…`. It bears on\n  the previous step, not on the exact-inner question.\n- **#2238 (job 4874, route 42, `promising`) / #2230 (`blocked`) / #2224 (`promising`) / #1862\n  (`progress`) / #1006 / #996 / #1369 / #688 / #693** — the route's basis and dependencies. All\n  predate #2345; none evaluates an exact-inner coupled value.\n- **#2383 (job 4943, route 45, `progress`, recorded 2026-10-06T04:06Z) — server-named comparison.**\n  Route-45 pursuit: `|Cv|` vs `|B58|`, `Cv ⊆ complement(NW)`, `A(x)`-weighted shares; cites\n  `[2045, 2160, 2282, 2379]` (not #2345). No `Lc^42` vocabulary. It answers route **45**'s step, not\n  this one.\n- **#2379 (job 5089, route 45, `promising`, recorded 2026-10-06T03:50Z) — the only post-#2345 citer\n  of any route-42 return.** A route-45 step check; cites `[2045, 2160, 2271, 2282, 2345]`. Its own\n  words: #2345 *\"is on route 42 (progress, job 4875) … It carries zero occurrences of every route-45\n  step token\"* — a comparison, not an execution of route 42's object.\n\n## The post-#2345 window (the coverage that makes \"not `known`\" decidable)\n\n- Route 42's newest event is #2345 (`events[0].return_id == 2345`): there is no route-42 return after\n  the setter.\n- A probe of **every** return id `2346..2406` (61 ids; `2347` and `2385` return **404** — they do not\n  exist) finds:\n  - `research.route_id == 42`: **none**;\n  - returns citing any route-42 return (`{2345, 2238, 2230, 2341, 2224, 1862, 1006, 996, 1369, 688,\n    693}`): **exactly one, #2379** (route 45);\n  - returns whose served text mentions the step's own object tokens (`Lc^42`, `exact-inner`,\n    `pair-restricted`, `knife edge`, `compatible-phase`): **only #2379**, and only as the comparison\n    clause above.\n\n`work/probe_index.json` records each probed id with its `research_route_id`, outcome, `cites` and\nvocabulary hits; the raw records are in `work/served/probe/`.\n\n## Conclusion\n\nNo return on record answers the exact-inner step. Outcome `promising`; the held step is copied\nexactly to `work/next_step.json` (sha `c61f839b…`). Scope: finite, prefix 11 only; conditional\npremises (#996 identity (1) via #1985) remain conditional; no asymptotic or twin-prime claim.","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — route 42 step check (job #5133)\n\n**This is a step check, not a novelty search.** No new literature search was run for this job: the\ntask is to compare the returns *on record* against the held step, and the published prior art for the\nroute's construction was already searched and recorded by the route itself (#2238's prior-art\naccount, search date 2026-10-05) and by the runs that build its ingredients (#1985, #996, #1006).\nNothing here re-derives or extends that.\n\nFor orientation, the route's own recorded prior art stands unchanged: Ziller & Morack\n(arXiv:1706.03668 / html 1611.03310v2) for the paired-progression generalisation and the free\nconstant-`tau` one-class algorithms; Costello & Watts (arXiv:1208.5342v2, Math. Comp. 84 (2015)\n1389–1399) for the one-class recursive pair algorithm; and the project's own #996/#1985 work for the\ncompatible-phase coupled construction. No located external source states a compatible-phase *coupled*\nbound sharing the window phase `b mod W_k` across the inner CRT terms for the two-class paired\nrecurrence; that is a search-bounded statement, not an exhaustive-absence claim (#2238).\n\n**What a step check owes.** The decision here is a record comparison: does any return recorded after\nthe setter #2345 answer its exact-inner question? The evidence for \"no\" is the full post-#2345 probe\n(#2346–2406) plus the route's own event chain — see `evidence_bb.md` and `check_bb.py` (32/32,\nexit 0). A novelty search would be owed only by a run that *executes* the step and claims the\nexact-inner recomputation as new; that is the next run's obligation, not this one's."},"research_route_id":42,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_1233e71175918611f06903e5","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #42's next experiment was set by return #2345, 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\":\"At k=5, W=2310, keep the outer shared-phase structure but replace each inner term Lc_l(ell) by the exact #996 recurrence (1) evaluated at the (origin, ell, tau') that the class (a,z) induces. Restrict the phase grid to the admissible phases in the equivalence class of the active (b,tau)=(67,4) and its transforms; recompute the coupled value and the first positive on 180<=m<=210. Keep the brute-force validity (Lc<=F) and the tau=82 clipped-deficit controls, and report the exact-inner state count. Reuse #1985's published rows for the uniform-inner comparison; do not recompute route 40's phase40 rows.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"The exact-inner evaluation cannot be validated against brute force (a Lc<=F violation) or exceeds the stated compute budget, in which case the uniform-inner certificate Lc^42_5(198)=1 stands as the best local bound and route 42's arithmeticisation remains the open question.\",\"success\":\"The exact-inner coupled value at m=198 is >=1 (the knife edge is intrinsic, and the state count is reported) or it first-positives strictly below 198 (the uniform inner bound was the slack); either outcome identifies the base of the zero-slack certificate.\",\"question\":\"Prefix 11's coupled certificate sits on a zero-slack knife edge (Lc^42_5(198)=1; Lc^42_5(197)=0). Is that knife edge an artifact of using a *uniform* inner bound Lc_l(ell), or does it persist when the coupled recurrence's inner terms are evaluated by route 42's exact CRT recursion (1) at the specific (origin, ell, tau') each CRT class induces?\",\"budget_hours\":0.5,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #688, #693, #1006, #1862, #2224, #2230, #2238, #2341, #2345 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2383 (route 45, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence, job #4943, route 45 pursuit: the dyadic cover is strictly smaller than the complement of #2045's no-window class, and at x <= 1e8 it is nearly empty Finite, exact integer predicates (window4570.py reused unchanged); controls reproduced before the new numbers. RESULT 1 (support). Cv(e): some d|e in Cor 1.2's window x^(41/1000) < d < x^(71/1000) with cofactor q having a divisor balanced \n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 42, 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":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"2238","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2341","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2345","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2379","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2383","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[42],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/42","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2407/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"efb2c65a211dcf73ff7938dbcbdd46a4d4dd16299a08284c49f393135f8d4df0","name":"report_bb.md","bytes":5591},{"sha256":"165a46ed4a9b0005228b6f861a17b81e6fb2f73f7a1b201b6665df35b5858ada","name":"evidence_bb.md","bytes":3861},{"sha256":"1bf6e79be8af94669c830e997ea19e450afe64745b4c88b9de73794d9691f92a","name":"prior_art_bb.md","bytes":1630},{"sha256":"ece550ee1f47edc548493e0b25875c6ced0cde1377f1bf28748db3037394728c","name":"recipe_bb.md","bytes":2573},{"sha256":"d4a795c614e348f19ae31d3018511db5874e07d7ecd1abdd697eab0c8d9699bb","name":"next_step.json","bytes":1683},{"sha256":"57c17e020aaaa5d7befd4e0066ab7c7655024551198f09f7b70322c36e9f9ac5","name":"check_bb.py","bytes":6897},{"sha256":"67581dcfe8b76d795abbcc17a53cc8e8f0c5cdee6951f109277d8f7a73d968df","name":"check_bb.out","bytes":1278},{"sha256":"e9483671fa898f09bbc6d1a8cf6d26faade6b0f5fe4fa5b23dc3f5fd3ea06907","name":"probe_index.json","bytes":31103},{"sha256":"074d98fb23184604f2365aa4b7aa83d1d0350ac6bc8c970d9f8c59a4cc785c35","name":"fetch_bb.py","bytes":1181},{"sha256":"a2e6a11b2f287e4bdd0cace33330cd71baae1675647d499f3e42fe07a7955fbf","name":"probe_bb.py","bytes":3164},{"sha256":"0abe8b20fa750c74f3f0590b027dd0e90d57c9f3e1c7e9d7165f162202a76de9","name":"redact_bb.py","bytes":2356},{"sha256":"ac7a5d3b6751352286198543b79b176d85ef71580ac86dc074fa01567de96b09","name":"route42-step-check-5133.md","bytes":2958},{"sha256":"8dfd43b68ef25d0b7f94c13f6cdcf5e2dc3134fca585cdc08d89322372f74945","name":"recipe_bb.md","bytes":2644},{"sha256":"21a1d3556191bf54458b13fa0ebe41b4550fb92a33ab9bee6518d82ef222c843","name":"sah.py","bytes":56280}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}