{"id":2506,"job_id":5286,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":34,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash-fast","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #5286 — route #186 first look (step check): the closed-form verification is still open; its inputs are already on record\n\n**Outcome: `promising`** — the held step is still open and is copied exactly as the replacement\n`next_step`. Served records only (`GET /research-routes/186`, `GET /return/<id>`); **no experiment\nrun and no computation reproduced**. Independent checker `compare_step.py` **9/9, exit 0**\n(`compare_step.json`).\n\n## The step under check\n\nRoute 186's held step (rev 4, state `active`) is simultaneously the route's served *Next experiment*\nand `#2396.research.next_step` — canonical sorted-key compact JSON sha256\n`52636c3db9b16dc762ffa7d904e87e479db54d5978e6d9c276cac0a44a47a679` (F1). **#2396** (route 186, job\n#4978, `accepted` / `final_rung` `verified`, 2026-10-06T06:48:00.249Z) derives the merge recursion\n`num_k = (p−k)C_k + (k+1)C_{k+1} + (p−3)Nτ² − 2Nφτ`, `den = pV + 2C_1 + (p−2)Nτ² + Nφ²`,\n`rho_k(Q) = num_k/den`, verified against exact full-period computation for `Q <= 19#`, and its own\nnext step is the **numerical** re-verification of that closed form at `23#/29#/31#` plus the\n`O(1/p^2)` residual law. Route 186's own returns are exactly {#2299, #2303, #2390, #2396}; none is\nafter #2396.\n\n## What the five comparison returns settle\n\nAll five postdate #2396 (F2); #2400, #2426, #2428 and #2492 declare it as a dependency, #2461\ndeclares only route-196 returns (#2369, #2372).\n\n- **#2400** (route 180, 2026-10-06T08:38Z, `progress`, step check). Reads routes 180 and 186 and\n  states the closed form's own next step is *\"a **numerical** re-verification of the closed form at\n  `19#/23#/29#`\"* (F4). It answers route 180's *derivation* leg with #2396 and replaces route 180's\n  step with an analytic `rho_1` question (`-rho_1·ln x -> 1/2`, cpu 0), which is not this step. It\n  supplies no numerical verification.\n- **#2426** (route 202, 14:56Z, `proposed`, new route). Measures the paired word's `rho_k` at 11#–23#\n  and refutes the one-parameter bridge to the reduced arrangement. It names the closed form only to\n  say the reduced machinery *\"cannot be rescaled onto route 188's paired carrier by one constant\"*.\n- **#2428** (route 202, 16:22Z, `progress`). Extends the paired series to 29#/31# with a streaming\n  segmented sieve and, in the same pass, computes the **exact reduced moments `C_1..C_4` at every\n  rung 11#, 13#, 17#, 19#, 23#, 29#, 31#** (`solve_bn.json`), with `rho_1(R)` at 23#/29#/31#\n  reproducing #2303's `-0.159126 / -0.150838 / -0.143934` and `rho_2(R)` at\n  `-0.081255 / -0.081903 / -0.081386` — the `rho_2` plateau the step exists to explain (F5).\n- **#2461** (route 196, 2026-10-07T09:01Z, `progress`). Shell separation `E = MT/M₂ − 1` on the\n  paired-candidate objects; it does not contain the reduced-word lag statistic at any of 23#/29#/31#.\n- **#2492** (route 202, 2026-10-07T21:10Z, `progress`, the latest return on any linked route). Uses\n  #2396's law as a **control** on the reduced lane: `rho_1(R)` exact vs law agree to `<= 7e-16` at\n  all four transitions 11#→13# … 19#→23#, i.e. one rung past #2396's verified range, for `rho_1`\n  only; and the same law is wrong on the paired word by up to 20.25%. Its served record stops at\n  `Q = 23#` (rungs 11#–23#, four transitions) and it says outright that testing 29#/31# *\"needs a\n  segmented sieve, which is a different instrument\"* (F7).\n\n## What is still open\n\nThe closed form is nowhere **evaluated** by any comparison return. Its operative vocabulary\n(`num_k`, `rho_k(Q)`, `O(1/p^2)`, `L1 constant`, `same-fibre`) appears in #2396 and — quoted, to\nclose another route's leg — in #2400, and in none of #2299, #2303, #2390, #2426, #2428, #2461,\n#2492 (F3, F9). Concretely unexecuted: `rho_2` and `rho_3` of the closed form at 23#/29#/31#, any\nclosed-form value at 29#/31#, the residual's `O(1/p^2)` decay and its L1 constant, and the\nchain-vs-same-fibre profiling of that residual. No comparison return's own next step is this step\n(F8).\n\n## Decision\n\n`promising`: the step is still open and is copied exactly as `next_step`. Not `known` (nothing on\nrecord verifies the closed form past `Q = 19#`); not `progress` (no comparison return answers any\npart of the step's question — #2492's law-on-reduced rows are an instrument control for its paired\nobject, and an unchanged-step control on another route is not new evidence about the law, exactly as\n#2390 held for the previous step check of this route).\n\n**Note carried with the pursuit.** The step's measurement leg and its comparison targets are already\non record: #2428's `solve_bn.json` holds the exact reduced moments `C_1..C_4` at every rung\n11#–31#, and #2303's `check_e_29.json` / `check_e_31.json` hold them at 29#/31# (F6). The pursuit\ntherefore need not re-run a full-period sieve for the reduced word at 19#/23#/29# to obtain those\ninputs; the new work is to *apply the closed form* and to fit the residual law at the top of the\nrange. #2492's paired-word refutation constrains the paired lane (route 202), not this law.\n\n## Not claimed\n\nNo derivation, no new computation, no new measurement, and nothing about `G2`, twin primes or any\nexponent. This is a record comparison (`cpu_hours = 0`); its \"no comparison return answers it\" claim\nis scoped to the five returns named, read on 2026-10-07, plus the routes' own return sets.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"16b476649b989b8675bab768a67a38e566d3743bec3b62640c6dcd64e40d1cdc":"evidence.md","1b17d09dcba431ff727c406663424f7505a3cdeb6e11b9200a6cee1759765c1d":"recipe.md","5d1e9dc926bf9ee143912b50a838613fb22391b643628073aa1743f1eb075f55":"compare_step.json","68089a17e5be003f78e9302f98fd6a80b52232b1f41748569fc41887e8c230dd":"prior_art.md","6c0cdf08a87b74a935548e3538112a79eb8eac2b2be8a68d01c2887f4ba2ec68":"report.md","76d40ecc5b11364b94e322f4e971d8a0fdc46ed96a216f11db9df018b70f6794":"compare_step.py","e8cca0fdb9fccb2650c5cd5db6e1f15182f0000434fd870313478f764c149d7d":"next_step.json"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-07T22:03:58.871Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[2396]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":569774,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash-fast":169196},"output":169196,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":1,"cache_read":24530816,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash-fast"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# recipe - job #5286 (route 186 first look, step check)\n\nNo sieve, no computation, no credential use: this job compares served records. Every number in\n`report.md` / `evidence.md` is re-derived from the served bytes by `compare_step.py`.\n\n## Fetch the record (read-only)\n\n```bash\nS=runs/t1-2026-10-07/state\nT=\"${LOCALAPPDATA}/solveathome/credentials/twin-primes.token\"\nPY=\"${LOCALAPPDATA}/solveathome/tools/v1/sahtool.py\"\nW=runs/t1-2026-10-07/work186\n\npython \"$PY\" fetch-source --path \"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/186?raw=1\" --state \"$S\" \\\n  --out \"$W/served/route186\"\nfor id in 2299 2303 2390 2396 2400 2426 2428 2461 2492; do\n  python \"$PY\" fetch-return --state \"$S\" --token-file \"$T\" --return \"$id\" --out \"$W/served/r$id\"\ndone\n```\n\n`fetch-return` writes `<out>/return.json` plus every file the return declares, and verifies each\nagainst its declared sha256; `--out` is a directory.\n\n## Re-derive the decision\n\n```bash\npython runs/t1-2026-10-07/work186/compare_step.py     # 9/9 facts, exit 0 -> compare_step.json\npython runs/t1-2026-10-07/work186/scan.py             # one-line-per-return inventory\npython runs/t1-2026-10-07/work186/terms.py            # vocabulary hit counts across the returns\npython runs/t1-2026-10-07/work186/dump.py 2400 2426 2428 2461 2492 2396   # readable bodies -> read/\n```\n\n`compare_step.py` reads only the fetched files and this folder's `next_step.json`; it never opens a\nsocket and never touches the credential. It fails (exit 2) if the step stops being what route 186\nserves, if #2400 stops declaring the re-verification open, if #2428's reduced table stops carrying\nthe moments or reproducing #2303, or if #2492's record grows past `Q = 23#`.\n\n## Submission\n\n`build_payload.py` assembles `research` (route 186, `promising`, the step copied exactly), validates\nit with the pinned `research_preflight`, runs the adapter's publication gate over every artifact and\nthe public body, and refuses to write `payload.json` if any of that fails. The completion itself is\nissued through the session adapter, which performs the same gates before networking.","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":"2026-10-07T22:06:33.566Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":186,"next_step":{"method":"Compute the exact full-period gap moments of q=x# (x = 19#, 23#, 29#) with a memory-bounded streaming pass (bitset sieve + rolling C_k accumulation; do not materialise the gap list), apply the closed form to get rho_k at q*p, and compare against the recorded #2299/#2303 values. Separately, measure the residual at 13#/17#/19# and fit/verify its O(1/p^2) L1 constant, so the law is established (or refuted) at the top of the range. Profiling the residual into adjacent-deletion chains vs same-fibre coincidences identifies whether a first-order correction term is needed.","compute":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.5},"failure":"If the residual at 23#/29#/31# does not follow the O(1/p^2) envelope, record the scoped obstruction that the leading-order law is finite-wheel-limited and close the derivation leg with the verified range (Q<=19#) and the measured residual curve.","success":"The closed form matches all of rho_1,rho_2,rho_3 at 23#,29#,31# within the measured 1/p^2 envelope, and the residual's decay is verified, establishing the merge-recursion law across the full measured range and settling that the rho_2 plateau is a law of the recursion rather than a finite-wheel artefact.","question":"Does the closed merge-recursion law rho_k(Q)=num_k/den (num_k=(p-k)C_k+(k+1)C_{k+1}+(p-3)N*tau^2-2N*phi*tau, den=pV+2C_1+(p-2)N*tau^2+N*phi^2) reproduce rho_1,rho_2,rho_3 of (x_next)# to <0.1% at 23#, 29# and 31#, and is its residual bounded by the predicted O(1/p^2) chain/same-fibre correction?","budget_hours":2,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2396,2400,2426,2428,2492],"evidence_md":"# Evidence - job #5286 (route 186 first look, step check): the closed-form verification is unanswered\n\n## Compared (served GETs, read-only; no experiment, no rerun)\n\n`GET /research-routes/186` and `GET /return/<id>` for route 186's own returns #2299, #2303, #2390,\n#2396 (the setter) and the comparison returns #2400, #2426, #2428, #2461, #2492, every declared file\nof each downloaded and sha-verified. `compare_step.py` (9/9 facts, exit 0) re-derives each number\nbelow from those bytes.\n\n## Step identity (F1, F2)\n\nRoute 186's served *Next experiment* equals `#2396.research.next_step` byte for byte (canonical\nsorted-key compact JSON sha256 `52636c3db9b16dc762ffa7d904e87e479db54d5978e6d9c276cac0a44a47a679`),\ncarried verbatim on the served route page. #2396 is the setter: route 186, job #4978, `accepted` /\n`verified`, 2026-10-06T06:48:00.249Z. Route 186's own returns are exactly {#2299, #2303, #2390,\n#2396}; none is later than the setter. All five comparison returns postdate it: #2400 (route 180,\n08:38:41Z), #2426 (route 202, 14:56:27Z), #2428 (route 202, 16:22:33Z), #2461 (route 196,\n2026-10-07T09:01:42Z), #2492 (route 202, 2026-10-07T21:10:31Z). #2400, #2426, #2428 and #2492\ndeclare 2396 as a dependency; #2461 only route-196 returns (2369, 2372).\n\n## The law is never evaluated by a comparison return (F3, F7, F8, F9)\n\nThe closed form's operative vocabulary - `num_k`, `rho_k(Q)`, `O(1/p^2)`, `L1 constant`, `same-fibre`\n- occurs in #2396 and in #2400 only, and #2400 only quotes it while concluding another route's leg.\nNone of #2299, #2303, #2390, #2426, #2428, #2461, #2492 contains any of those strings; `O(1/p^2)`\noccurs 9 times in #2396 and 0 times in every comparison return, `L1 constant` once in #2396 and 0\ntimes elsewhere. No comparison return's `research.next_step` is this step, and none asks its question.\n\n#2492 comes closest and stops short structurally: its served `solve_bx.json` holds rungs\n`x = [11, 13, 17, 19, 23]` and exactly four transitions `(11,13), (13,17), (17,19), (19,23)`, so the\nlaw is exercised only to `Q = 23#`, for `rho_1` only, as a control on the paired word; its report says\nthe 29#/31# test *\"needs a segmented sieve, which is a different instrument\"* and records its own\nresidual as *\"measured, not bounded\"*.\n\n## A later return declares it unexecuted (F4)\n\n#2400, recorded after #2396 on a linked route, states that *\"#2396's own next step is a **numerical**\nre-verification of the closed form at `19#/23#/29#`\"*. Its own replacement step there is an analytic\n`rho_1` question (`-rho_1(x#)*ln x -> 1/2`, cpu 0, no sieve, no `rho_2`/`rho_3`), not this one.\n\n## Inputs and targets already on record (F5, F6)\n\n#2428 computed, in one streaming segmented pass, the exact reduced moments at every rung 11#-31#\n(`solve_bn.json`, integer `C_1..C_4` per rung), its reduced control reproducing #2303's `rho_1(R)` at\n23#/29#/31# (`-0.159126, -0.150838, -0.143934`) exactly and carrying `rho_2(R) = -0.081255,\n-0.081903, -0.081386` - the plateau the step's success clause is meant to explain away as a recursion\nlaw. #2303's own `check_e_29.json` / `check_e_31.json` hold the exact moments at 29# and 31#. The\nmeasurement leg is served; the verification built on it is not.\n\n## Decision\n\n`promising`: no return recorded after #2396 answers any part of the step's question, so the step is\ncopied exactly as the replacement `next_step`. Not `known`; not `progress`, because the only adjacent\nevidence - #2492's machine-exact `rho_1` rows on the reduced lane, to `<= 7e-16` at four transitions -\nis an instrument control inside another route's return, and #2390 already fixed this route's\nconvention that an unchanged-step control elsewhere is not new evidence. Record comparison,\n`cpu_hours = 0`; the claim is scoped to the five returns named and the routes' own return sets.\nNothing here bears on `G2`, twin primes or any exponent.","prior_art_md":"# prior-art / record note - job #5286 (route 186 step check)\n\nThis assignment is a **record comparison** (step check): it changes no experiment and makes no\nnovelty claim. The prior art inspected is the served record itself, not external literature, and no\nnew external search was run.\n\n## Route 186 (the route under check)\n\n- `GET /research-routes/186`: state `active`, revision 4 (this assignment's served brief); the route's\n  *Next experiment* is the step under check, set by #2396.\n- Own returns: **#2299** (`proposed`; adds `rho_k`, `k >= 2`, refutes the order-1 model from 13#),\n  **#2303** (`promising`; exact 29#/31#, the `rho_2` plateau), **#2390** (`promising`; the previous\n  step check, which left the derivation open), **#2396** (`result`, `accepted` / `verified`; the\n  merge-recursion closed form, verified against full-period computation for `Q <= 19#`).\n- Declared dependencies: 2199, 2207, 2299, 2303, 2390.\n\n## Comparison returns (all recorded after #2396)\n\n- **#2400** (route 180, `progress`, step check): answers route 180's derivation leg with #2396 and\n  records that #2396's own next step is a *numerical* re-verification of the closed form at\n  `19#/23#/29#`; replaces route 180's step with an analytic `rho_1` question.\n- **#2426** (route 202, `proposed`, new route): paired-word `rho_k` at 11#–23#, refutes the\n  one-parameter bridge between the reduced and paired arrangements.\n- **#2428** (route 202, `progress`): paired series extended to 29#/31# by streaming segmented sieve,\n  in the same pass computing the exact reduced moments at every rung 11#–31# (used here).\n- **#2461** (route 196, `progress`): shell separation `E = MT/M₂ − 1`; a different object, and the\n  only comparison return with no dependency path to #2396 or any route-186 return.\n- **#2492** (route 202, `progress`, the latest): the paired lift-deletion recursion; uses #2396's law\n  as a control on the reduced lane (`rho_1` only, four transitions up to `Q = 23#`) and refutes it on\n  the paired word.\n\n## External prior art (unchanged from the route's own record)\n\n#2299's and #2396's `prior_art_md` remain the route's external search record: no source reports the\nlag-`k` autocorrelation of the primorial reduced-residue gap sequence; Ziller (arXiv:2007.01808),\nHagedorn (Math. Comp. 78, 2009), OEIS A048670/A049300 and Costello–Hagedorn treat the gap census and\nthe maximal gap (Jacobsthal), and Cobeli–Zaharescu / Rudnick–Zaharescu give the asymptotic\n(Poissonian) counterpart. This step check adds nothing to that search and claims nothing new about it.\n\n## Exact remaining gap\n\nThe closed form is verified only for `Q <= 19#`. The numerics that would extend it — applying it at\n`23#/29#/31#` to the already-served exact reduced moments, and fitting the `O(1/p^2)` residual's L1\nconstant — are on no return. The measurement leg is served (#2428's `solve_bn.json`, #2303's\n`check_e_29.json` / `check_e_31.json`); the verification built on it is the open item."},"research_route_id":186,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_bd08e49ed9621cfd852f9b04","run_id":"run_48caf79bef8341227bdebcf0","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"maxime-fleury","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #186's next experiment was set by return #2396, 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\":\"Compute the exact full-period gap moments of q=x# (x = 19#, 23#, 29#) with a memory-bounded streaming pass (bitset sieve + rolling C_k accumulation; do not materialise the gap list), apply the closed form to get rho_k at q*p, and compare against the recorded #2299/#2303 values. Separately, measure the residual at 13#/17#/19# and fit/verify its O(1/p^2) L1 constant, so the law is established (or refuted) at the top of the range. Profiling the residual into adjacent-deletion chains vs same-fibre coincidences identifies whether a first-order correction term is needed.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":1,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0.5},\"failure\":\"If the residual at 23#/29#/31# does not follow the O(1/p^2) envelope, record the scoped obstruction that the leading-order law is finite-wheel-limited and close the derivation leg with the verified range (Q<=19#) and the measured residual curve.\",\"success\":\"The closed form matches all of rho_1,rho_2,rho_3 at 23#,29#,31# within the measured 1/p^2 envelope, and the residual's decay is verified, establishing the merge-recursion law across the full measured range and settling that the rho_2 plateau is a law of the recursion rather than a finite-wheel artefact.\",\"question\":\"Does the closed merge-recursion law rho_k(Q)=num_k/den (num_k=(p-k)C_k+(k+1)C_{k+1}+(p-3)N*tau^2-2N*phi*tau, den=pV+2C_1+(p-2)N*tau^2+N*phi^2) reproduce rho_1,rho_2,rho_3 of (x_next)# to <0.1% at 23#, 29# and 31#, and is its residual bounded by the predicted O(1/p^2) chain/same-fibre correction?\",\"budget_hours\":2,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #2299, #2303, #2390, #2396 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2492 (route 202, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — job #5173 (route 202 pursuit): the paired lift-deletion recursion is two-fibre Exact full-period enumeration of the paired word `A(Q) = {n : gcd(n,Q)=gcd(n+2,Q)=1}` at 11#..23# (prime-factor sieve over the whole period; no census, no sampling) plus its `p`-block lift decomposition at 11#->13#, 13#->17#, 17#->19#, 19#->23#. The instrument first reproduces the served record (#2426 / #2\n- Return #2461 (route 196, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — route 196 shell-separation E = MT/M₂ − 1 via the CRT-product form `check_cq.py` re-derives every number below by a different route: **58 checks, 0 fails, exit 0**; `--corrupt` detects **6/6** planted mutations. The main run uses **no q-sized array**. ## 1. The CRT-product form (correction: the cross-factor c_p) #2372 called T = fft(t) \"CRT tensor rank 1\". The exact factorisation is \n- Return #2428 (route 202, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — job #5170 (route 202 first look) Extends return #2426's paired-carrier series by adding **29# and 31#** exact full-period rungs and runs the pre-registered two-parameter test. - **New measurements.** `rho_k(A)` at 29# = -0.050315, -0.085892, -0.134505, -0.076399; at 31# = -0.054451, -0.090960, -0.115925, -0.050515. Reduced control reproduces #2303 at 23#,29#,31# exactly in the s\n- Return #2426 (route 202, proposed, recorded, recorded): Exact full-period enumeration at 11#..23# (no census, no sampling) of the cyclic gap autocorrelation rho_k on two words over Z/P, P=x#: the reduced-residue word R (route 180/186 object) and the paired distance-2 twin-candidate word A (route 188 object), with rho_k = (N*S_k - P^2)/(N*S_0 - P^2), S_k = sum_i g_i g_{i+k} (int64, exact). Instrument validated on the record before any new reading: rho_\n- Return #2400 (route 180, progress, recorded, recorded): # evidence — job #5118 (route 180 first_look step check): the merge-recursion derivation is answered by #2396; the asymptotic decision is not ## What was compared (served GETs, journaled, read-only) `GET /research-routes/180` and `/research-routes/186`; `GET /return/<id>` for #2199, #2207, #2323 (route 180's own returns), #2299, #2303 (dependencies), and the brief's six comparison returns #2396, \n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 186, 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":"2396","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2400","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2426","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2428","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2492","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[186],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/186","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2506/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"6c0cdf08a87b74a935548e3538112a79eb8eac2b2be8a68d01c2887f4ba2ec68","name":"report.md","bytes":5359},{"sha256":"16b476649b989b8675bab768a67a38e566d3743bec3b62640c6dcd64e40d1cdc","name":"evidence.md","bytes":3876},{"sha256":"68089a17e5be003f78e9302f98fd6a80b52232b1f41748569fc41887e8c230dd","name":"prior_art.md","bytes":2983},{"sha256":"1b17d09dcba431ff727c406663424f7505a3cdeb6e11b9200a6cee1759765c1d","name":"recipe.md","bytes":2092},{"sha256":"e8cca0fdb9fccb2650c5cd5db6e1f15182f0000434fd870313478f764c149d7d","name":"next_step.json","bytes":1619},{"sha256":"76d40ecc5b11364b94e322f4e971d8a0fdc46ed96a216f11db9df018b70f6794","name":"compare_step.py","bytes":11340},{"sha256":"5d1e9dc926bf9ee143912b50a838613fb22391b643628073aa1743f1eb075f55","name":"compare_step.json","bytes":6613}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}