{"id":2586,"job_id":5393,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"gpt-6.1-sol","provider":"openai","report_md":"The human's incremental direction is correct: rebuild changed compilation inputs and their transitive dependents, after verifying that every reused object belongs to the exact unchanged input configuration. A prose or attribution change alone does not require rebuilding the mathematical dependency closure. It does require a new manuscript binding and current validation evidence where the contract demands it.\n\nThis is a bounded plan for Job #5393 under its issued direction revision. I reviewed only the supplied brief and selected current source. Framework execution, local persistence, history recovery, outstanding-attempt reconciliation, submission and receipt collection were not performed under the explicit no-tools boundary. I cannot claim that the issued lifecycle obligations have been completed.\n\nThe smallest useful next investigation is an input-and-object reconciliation that produces the precise dirty set and its forward dependency closure. Write the falsifier before executing: reuse is invalid if any consumed source, setup, compiler/runtime, dependency object, build setting, import resolution or object hash differs from its recorded provenance, or if that provenance cannot be established. The outcome should be a reviewable list of verified reusable objects, required rebuilds, and unresolved inputs. It must not begin by deleting the entire cache.\n\nFor each reusable module, verify exact source bytes and size, the entire prepared setup file, direct imports and their flags, compiler identity, relevant options, package/module settings, plugins/dynamic libraries, imported artifact identities and search-path resolution. Verify the output object and any consumed companion artifacts against the historical source-build ledger, including successful exit and completed custody. Do this recursively for its dependency closure. An object filename, timestamp, module count, version label, or claimed historical success is insufficient. Semantic equality of parsed setup JSON alone is insufficient where the recipe requires exact execution bytes: restoration must reproduce the declared setup SHA256 before reuse or compilation.\n\nPin Lean 4.35.0-rc3 and the declared Mathlib revision 331d5244f0d3aad530d9ab00ded135b4c7691502, together with the resolved dependency revisions and archive hashes. The supplied Mathlib lakefile's branch labels do not independently establish resolved pins. Verify the actual manifest/setup resolution. Bind compiler options, command arrays, importArts and all other consumed settings, plus the released compiler/library closure required by the recipe. The released Lean base is an explicit trusted boundary; neither the shown worker nor the descriptors establish a compiler-from-source build or a complete portable Rust/system reconstruction.\n\nThen form the build graph from actual consumed inputs. Mark a module dirty for a changed source/setup/compiler/setting/imported object or missing valid provenance. Add every transitive dependent of that module and compile in dependency order. Reused inputs must remain immutable; publish newly built outputs into a distinct validated generation after successful completion. Record each artifact as reused or freshly built, with its input and output hashes and supplying receipt. Preserve historical receipts instead of relabeling them as current builds.\n\nThe supplied scientific Lean files and proof bodies are declared unchanged, and the visible manuscript delta changes attribution and domain explanation. If all compilation-input and object pins validate, the mathematical dirty set can therefore be empty. That is a conditional conclusion, not an observation that usable objects currently exist. Fresh reference, exports and audits remain separate required work.\n\nThe displayed `build-worker.py` is explicitly a serial cold bootstrap: it requires an empty object directory, disables historical cache paths and compiles every inventory row. The incremental policy is stated in `portable-spec.json` and `recipe.md`, but an incremental operator implementation is not supplied here. Do not claim the cold worker already performs selective rebuilds, or invoke it over reused objects in conflict with its assertions. A separately reviewed operator must implement the reuse reconciliation and forward-chain behavior while preserving the scientific compiler inputs and budget controls. Keep the cold recipe as the reproducible fallback.\n\nChecker/tool changes have their own dependency graph. `OfflineMain.lean` adds a modification notice while preserving the historical adapted body. A comment may leave generated executable bytes unchanged, but changed source bytes still require valid derivation evidence for the expected executable pin. Verify or rebuild the changed tool and its dependents as needed; do not infer its source-to-binary correspondence from the old binary hash. The current validator, primitive audit, preparation scripts, comparator/exporter sources, configurations, recipes and their runtime dependencies must each be bound to the current execution contract. Referenced inventories and capsules must actually be inspected by the authorized operator, not treated as already reviewed because their names and hashes appear here.\n\nA full clean rebuild requires a recorded reason, such as unavailable or unverifiable historical objects, contamination, a compiler or broadly consumed dependency/settings change, or an explicitly required independent source reproduction. Widen invalidation only as far as the failed dependency boundary requires. If the entire closure is invalid, record why the forward closure is effectively the whole graph. Cost measurements may guide scheduling but cannot make an unverified object eligible for reuse. Preserve the assignment's resource ceilings and record any inability to complete within them.\n\nMachine identity, IP addresses, session metadata and manuscript prose are not compilation inputs. They must not trigger scientific recompilation or appear as private observations in the shareable report. Target architecture/ABI and relevant immutable runtime libraries are compatibility/build settings and must still be verified. Execution-boundary attestations belong to execution evidence, not the mathematical source cache key. Prose changes belong to the manuscript/map/statement-binding review graph. A prose change that alters the claimed theorem can invalidate its binding even if every Lean object is unchanged.\n\nAfter reconciliation, regenerate the current trusted reference from the exact source/setup/toolchain configuration, using only verified dependencies. Freshness requires a recorded current compile/export custody chain; equality with an old pinned hash alone does not establish it. Generate current target exports and binding audits, comparing all three exact theorem types and the critical definition types and values, including PrimeFamily, period, survivor/consecutive predicates, cyclicGapDistances, G2, mainPrimes and mainShape. Preserve the distinction between declared historical AST equality and newly observed equality.\n\nRun the ID-resolved primitive audit on the actual fresh reference and exact solution. Require all four declarations Nat.lor, Nat.xor, String.mk and String.mk._proof_1, with their declaration kinds, universes, type/value DAGs and relevant flags. Handwritten expected hashes or self-comparison do not substitute for this comparison. Reconcile the scanners' differing axiom-tag handling against the actual exporter grammar. The inert scan remains structural evidence only; transitive axiom and kernel checks remain necessary.\n\nExecute both positive stages and all seven controls under the reviewed boundaries: Lean wrong-statement, changed-definition, missing-target, sorry and corrupt-proof; Nanoda sorry and corrupt-proof. A preflight, missing binary, hash, isolation or resource failure is inability, not successful control detection. Require the expected checker rejection and diagnostic at the intended stage. Bind exact consumed and adapted configuration bytes; path/presentation adaptations must preserve mathematical options. Compilation and checking must use separate discarded writable state, and external operator attestation remains necessary. No current execution observations are asserted here.\n\nStopping condition: the reconciliation identifies every reused artifact's provenance and the complete required forward rebuild set; necessary builds finish within the recorded bounds; current reference/export/binding/primitive/axiom evidence is obtained; both positives and seven controls produce the required outcomes; and the exact current source/execution package receives its authenticated acceptance receipt. If a gate fails, retain its actual result, identify the narrow invalidation boundary and next action, and stop the dependent acceptance claim. This planning return does not satisfy those execution gates.\n\nCurrent status is therefore SOURCE PROPOSAL DEFENSIBLE; CURRENT FRESH REFERENCE, AUDITS, KERNEL STAGES, CONTROLS AND AUTHENTICATED FORMAL ACCEPTANCE NOT RUN. Historical cold-build artifacts are candidates for verified reuse, not new receipts. Independent current manuscript delta review and operator-source review remain required. Job #3880 remains the separate source-ledger handoff awaiting its specifically chosen expert and authoritative history. O1–O7 remain open, and no full-original-paper formalization is asserted.\n\n46 returns wait for a verdict. This source-author report does not decide those returns or its own work. Report usage is to be credited once on planning return; paper tokens remain null. No usage estimate, duplicate credit or submission receipt is fabricated.\n\nThe current scoped machine-free paper source proposal is recorded as return #2585. It has no current kernel/fresh-build/independent authenticated proof-acceptance receipt. Original O1-O7 remain OPEN.","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-09T10:44:53.033Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":219772,"models":{"gpt-6.1-sol":0},"output":8426,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":13184,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["gpt-6.1-sol"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":null,"verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"high","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":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_a83312999d0adbdf5dccee1c","run_id":"run_7acc6213685de6846a462fc7","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Consult the relevant shared local evidence. Identify the smallest useful investigation serving your saved direction, its falsifier, evidence requirements and stopping condition. Record what is already known and any specific blocker. This is a bounded planning assignment; publish only shareable findings.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/2586/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}