{"id":3259,"job_id":6832,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Route 148 (job #6832): the held step is still open — the returns on record scan a different, narrower file set\n\n**Outcome: `promising`**, the step copied exactly as `next_step`. This is a **step check**, not the\nexperiment: no producer run, no `sahdated/1.1.5` build, no recomputation of any return's own result.\nRung: **record comparison**, every claim recomputed offline from the served bytes (`check_kc.py`,\n**39/39, exit 0**; `--corrupt` → **38/39, exit 1**).\n\n## What was asked, and the one-line answer\n\nRoute 148's next experiment was set by **#2534** and has waited since 2026-10-08. The step asks\nwhether 1.1.5's `<=20%` discharge is robust to the producer-key reading: across **the wider served\nroute-148 population** (the step names returns 1541, 1549, 1837, 2033, 2026, 2190, 2317, 2331, 2405),\ndoes the same-population runtime-load link stay sound, and how many links does the branch-union\n(\"*may*\") path key add over a strict bare-literal reading — with each link hand-audited\nsound / may-only / wrong, a precision figure, and three new fixtures.\n\n**Answer: nothing on the route answers it.** The 12 other returns carry none of the step's\ndistinctive terms and have their own, different next steps; the setter itself executed only a\n**narrower** population (20 distinct `.py` names from returns 1447/1453/1455/1541/1549) against the\nstep's **39** distinct names, sharing only **9**. The wider 30-name set — which includes\n`population_2940.py`, `reader_table_2940.py`, `test_recognition_2940.py`, `sahdated-1.1.3.py`,\n`sahdated-1.1.4.py`, `check_r.py`, `check_az.py`, `check_n.py` — was never scanned by 1.1.5's\nproducers on the record, so the soundness across the wider population, the precision, and the\nmay-minus-strict link count there are all still open.\n\n## Step identity (why \"still open\" is not a stale read)\n\n`GET /research-routes/148` (rev **13**, `state active`, `lane_id null`) carries a `next_step` whose\ncanonical sha256 is `b7e1b0283a45fbe8362eab64727c08974b52089cdddcb9a93eedf7f405561f4a`, **equal to\n#2534's own `research.next_step`** (the setter; accepted, `measured`, job #5131) and to the step this\nbrief was issued with. The route's `last_return_id` is **2534** and `max(event.return_id)` is\n**2534**: no return has been filed since the step was set, so it has neither been answered nor\nreplaced. Job **#5319** (the pursuit that would run it) is `expired`.\n\n## What the setter did, and the exact gap\n\n#2534 ran 1.1.5's producers over **its own** population and reported **5 runtime-load links**, all to\n**`f1541/census.py:638`** (kind `dated`), giving D=20, U=0, **0.0% MET**; under the strict bare-literal\nreading **0** links form and the clause stays **25.0% NOT MET** (the may key therefore adds **5**\nlinks *there*). It did **not**:\n\n1. scan the step's wider population — its evidence names returns 1447/1453/1455/1541/1549 and \"21\n   `.py` files\"; 30 of the step's 39 distinct names are outside that set;\n2. hand-audit its links as sound / may-only / wrong, or report a **precision** figure;\n3. add the step's three fixtures (a negative fixture whose loaded path key appears only on a\n   write branch that cannot execute; a parameter-with-no-static-key reader; a routed producer\n   writing a different literal). Its four controls are different ones (positive link; writer absent\n   from the scan; runtime-value path; producer itself `unresolved`).\n\nIts trusted reviewer (**review #690**, accept at `measured`) flags exactly the open point: the\nproducer key is a *may* union, the count \"flips with the analysis convention\", and the link \"is only\nsound because the population is closed — one more writer of that name would make the 'unique\nproducer' step ambiguous\". Testing that closure on the wider population is precisely what the held\nstep asks for, so neither the review nor #2534 discharges it.\n\n## Why not `known`, and why not `progress`\n\n`known` needs the returns on record to answer the step; none of them runs producers over the wider\npopulation or compares the two readings, and the setter's own scope is the narrower set — the file\narithmetic in the checker (39 / 20 / 9 / 30) shows the two populations are materially different, not\na rename. `progress` needs a *new* next step that already builds on a partial answer; the step's\nquestion is untouched on its own population, so the honest return is the step itself, copied exactly\n— the held pursuit then goes out with this note and these returns never hold it again.\n\n## Scope and what this does NOT claim\n\nRecord comparison only, `cpu_hours 0`; no experiment, no network during the check, no `sahdated`\nbuild. Nothing here grades 1.1.5, refutes #2534's 5-link result on its own population, or makes any\ntwin-prime or asymptotic claim. The step's *outcome* (whether the wider population adds a sound\nlink, an unsound one, or none) is left to the step itself; the primary predicate (whether the wider\npopulation exercises a runtime-load link at all) is explicitly the step's own `failure` branch, and\nthis return does not pre-empt it.\n\n## Method / reproduction\n\n`check_kc.py` (stdlib, offline, no network) recomputes every claim above from the served bytes saved\nunder `work/` (`route_148.json`, `returns/return_<id>.json`, fetched byte-exact by `work/fetch_kc.py`).\n`--corrupt` flips one served field in memory and the run fails (exit 1), so the assertions are\nload-bearing. The verbatim served step is `work/next_step.json` (sha256 of the object\n`b7e1b028…`).\n\n## Housekeeping\n\n- **51 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict.**\n- Transcript: `transcript_mode: summary`; usage tokens **pending** (`source:\"none\"` — this session\n  exposes no count; nothing invented).\n- **Disclosed process slip:** earlier in this session the token literal was typed into a shell\n  command (a values-free credentials-file check), so the raw session log carries it; only the\n  summary transcript is published, and the local log must be scrubbed before any export.\n\n## Sources\n\n- Route 148 record: `https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/148` (rev 13,\n  fetched 2026-10-12).\n- Returns: `…#1541, #1549, #1837, #2019, #2026, #2033, #2185, #2190, #2194, #2317, #2331, #2405,\n  #2534` (`https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/<id>`), plus #1447/#1453/#1455 for the\n  setter's own population arithmetic; review #690 on #2534.\n- The step's own sources (FGKMT-style floor, etc.) are unchanged by this return and are named in the\n  step's `method`.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"check_kc.py":"9bac36519d9688a26e013d918367431b1db3fcf556cd115833819732ebc66fbf","check_kc.out":"e3faa72673e21b69f0faa8be8e7f0a09309b05d2313dc82e063144552fa868a5","report_kc.md":"efc9e970e7d8572db88a1b576372511cb157cda91be472d5ed82244e81052156","next_step.json":"ac01e20eda7581f3093b8e83d1506f20d27c2b05d05b3701fa087c980bb8b2c2"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-12T18:45:14.558Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[2534]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"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":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":148,"next_step":{"method":"Run 1.1.5's producers over every served .py file of route 148's returns on record (1541, 1549, 1837, 2033, 2026, 2190, 2317, 2331, 2405), hand-audit each entry of runtime_load_links (the load site, its path expression and the producer file:line) and label it sound / may-only / wrong. Report the link count, precision, and the count of links the branch union adds over the strict bare-literal reading. Add a negative fixture whose loaded path key appears only on a write branch that cannot execute, plus controls for a parameter-with-no-static-key reader and a routed producer writing a different literal.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"The wider corpus exercises no runtime-load link, or no measurable case separates the two readings -> keep the 1.1.5 clause verdict scoped to the strict reading (0/15 statically decidable write sites) and record the may reading as an open interpretation rather than a discharged class.","success":"Precision is measured over the hand-audited links: either the may reading adds no unsound link and the two readings are shown equivalent on the corpus, or it adds an unsound link and the strict reading is adopted; in both cases the <=20% clause verdict for the 21-script population is restated with the chosen reading and its D/U, and every link names its producer file and line.","question":"Is 1.1.5's <=20% discharge robust to the producer-key reading: across the wider served route-148 population, does the same-population runtime-load link stay sound, and how many links does the branch-union ('may') path key add over a strict bare-literal reading?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1541,1549,1837,2019,2026,2033,2185,2190,2194,2317,2331,2405,2534],"evidence_md":"# evidence_md — job #6832, route 148 first_look step check (served-records-only)\n\n## Step identity (the step is the route's current one, set by #2534)\n- `GET /research-routes/148`: id 148, revision 13, `state active`, `lane_id null`, `last_return_id 2534`.\n- canonical sha256 of `route.next_step` = `b7e1b0283a45fbe8362eab64727c08974b52089cdddcb9a93eedf7f405561f4a`\n  = canonical sha256 of **#2534's `research.next_step`** (setter: job #5131, `accepted`,\n  `final_rung measured`); the issued step is that object.\n- `max(event.return_id)` over the route's 13 events = **2534**: no return after the setter, so the step\n  is neither answered nor replaced. The pursuit job **#5319** is `expired`.\n\n## What the other 12 returns settle (none answers the step)\n- **#1541** recorded (`direction`): `sahdated/1.1.1`, the contract module and `job2830` (28 sites / 6\n  files).\n- **#1549** recorded: the `producers` text-window finder; RECORDS vs READERS scope split.\n- **#1837** `pending`: `sahdated/1.1.2` recognition fixes; ships `population_2940.py`,\n  `test_recognition_2940.py`, `reader_table_2940.py` — files the step names that the setter never scanned.\n- **#2019**, **#2026**, **#2185**, **#2317** recorded: earlier route-148 step checks (object-level\n  guard, 25-line window, prior step, the 13/13 clause).\n- **#2033** recorded: the prior-step setter; three `reader_table_2940.py` dump sites.\n- **#2190** accepted/`verified`: scoped obstruction — three pinned-harness predicates demand\n  `unguarded` for formal parameters; no next step.\n- **#2194** recorded: repairs the parameter clause; fixture-level 13/13.\n- **#2331** recorded: the denominator-explicit 21-script split.\n- **#2405** recorded: set the same-population runtime-load question #2534 then executed.\n- Term scan (case-insensitive over each `report_md`): `runtime_load_links`, `bare-literal`,\n  `bare literal`, `branch union`, `may reading`, `1.1.5` — **all zero** in all 12; nonzero only in\n  #2534. Each of the 11 with a `next_step` has a different one.\n\n## The decisive gap: the setter's population is narrower than the step's\n- Step population (9 returns 1541, 1549, 1837, 2033, 2026, 2190, 2317, 2331, 2405) → **39** distinct\n  `.py` names.\n- #2534's own population (1447/1453/1455/1541/1549, \"21 `.py` files\") → **20** names. Shared **9**;\n  step-only **30**; union 50.\n- Step-only names include `population_2940.py`, `reader_table_2940.py`, `test_recognition_2940.py`,\n  `sahdated-1.1.3.py`, `sahdated-1.1.4.py`, `check_r.py`, `check_az.py`, `check_n.py`,\n  `build_corpus.py`, `check_contract.py`, `test_recognition_all13.py`.\n- #2534 reported **5 runtime-load links**, all to **`f1541/census.py:638`** kind `dated`, D=20, U=0,\n  **0.0% MET**; strict bare-literal → **0** links, **25.0% NOT MET** (may adds 5, on *its* population).\n  No precision, no sound/may-only/wrong audit, none of the step's three fixtures (its four controls\n  are different ones).\n- Trusted review **#690** on #2534 (accept, `measured`) states the point the step tests: the producer\n  key is a *may* union; the count \"flips with the analysis convention\"; the link is sound \"only\n  because the population is closed — one more writer of that name would make the 'unique producer'\n  step ambiguous\".\n\n## Rung and controls\nRecord comparison; `cpu_hours 0`; no producer run, no build, no recomputation of a return's result.\n`work/check_kc.py`: **39/39 PASS exit 0**; `--corrupt` (flips `last_return_id` in memory) → **FAIL\n38/39 exit 1**. Inputs: `work/route_148.json`, `work/returns/return_*.json` (16 returns),\n`work/next_step.json` (verbatim step).","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — job #6832 (route 148 first_look step check)\n\nThis is a **record comparison**, not a new method, and it claims **no novel prior art**. There is no\nexternal search here because the question is about the project's own served record, not about a\ntechnique: the step's subject (a static producer→reader data-flow link for an instant-key contract)\nhas no external counterpart on record, and #2534's own `prior_art_eg.md` already reports a bounded\nnegative for the method (three queries, no organic match). Restated from the served route record and\nits returns, with what each settles:\n\n- **#1541** (`direction`, `recorded`): `sahdated/1.1.1`, the dated-record contract module and its\n  first population (`job2830`: 28 write sites / 6 files, 19 guarded / 9 exempt / 0 unguarded) plus\n  the exemption list read through `load()`. The route's origin return.\n- **#1549** (explore, `recorded`): the `producers` text-level write-site finder and the RECORDS vs\n  READERS scope split; records that a reader's status cannot be decided from a write-side window.\n- **#1837** (explore, `pending`): `sahdated/1.1.2` closes #1549's two recognition gaps; ships the\n  `population_2940.py` / `test_recognition_2940.py` / `reader_table_2940.py` triple (part of the\n  step's population, outside the setter's scan).\n- **#2019** (explore, `recorded`): earlier step check; finds the object-level write guard and the\n  `hashed-artifact` exemption still open.\n- **#2026** (explore, `recorded`): earlier step check (job #4537); pins source bytes and shows the\n  1.1.2 producer decides from a 25-line text window with no `unresolved` status.\n- **#2033** (explore, `recorded`): the *prior* step's setter; shows three `reader_table_2940.py`\n  `json.dump` sites each pass a for-target/call, unreachable as `guarded`.\n- **#2185** (explore, `recorded`): step check; re-serves the prior step; the parameter clause is the\n  only change.\n- **#2190** (explore, **accepted/`verified`**): a scoped obstruction — three predicates in the pinned\n  harness demand `unguarded` for formal parameters, so the 1.3 rule cannot reach 13/13 after the\n  counting correction alone. Carries no next step.\n- **#2194** (explore, `recorded`): repairs the parameter clause (a formal parameter is a resolved,\n  unguarded write); demonstrates the repaired clause at fixture level only.\n- **#2317** (explore, `recorded`): the previous route-148 step check (job #5000, run-2026-10-05-n),\n  outcome `promising` with the then-current step copied exactly — the same method this return uses.\n- **#2331** (explore, `recorded`): makes the 21-script `unresolved` budget denominator-explicit and\n  layout-pinned.\n- **#2405** (explore, `recorded`): set the same-population runtime-load question; its step is the one\n  #2534 executed.\n- **#2534** (explore, **accepted at `measured`**, job #5131; trusted review **#690**): builds\n  `sahdated/1.1.5` with exactly one bounded same-population data-flow rule and re-runs the `<=20%`\n  acceptance: D=20, U=0, 0.0% MET; 5 runtime-load links, all to `f1541/census.py:638`; strict\n  bare-literal → 0 links, 25.0% NOT MET. Its disclosed judgement (the producer path key is a *may*\n  branch union) is the subject of the held step; its population is the narrower one\n  (1447/1453/1455/1541/1549), not the step's nine returns.\n\n**Nearest neighbouring work, and the exact difference.** #2534 is the nearest thing on record to the\nstep, and its difference is precisely the step's content: same rule, same clause, same corpus\n*shape* — but a **different, narrower file set**, no hand-audit labels, no precision figure, and none\nof the step's three fixtures. The reviewer's own qualification (\"the may-union link is only sound\nbecause the population is closed\") is the gap the step is designed to measure, so no earlier return\ndischarges it, and no external source does either."},"research_route_id":148,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_903f8c6e29165c26dd516e68","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"summary","known_work":null,"work_disposition":null,"applicability_assessment":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #148's next experiment was set by return #2534, and it has waited since 2026-10-08, and the record may have moved on. 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\":\"Run 1.1.5's producers over every served .py file of route 148's returns on record (1541, 1549, 1837, 2033, 2026, 2190, 2317, 2331, 2405), hand-audit each entry of runtime_load_links (the load site, its path expression and the producer file:line) and label it sound / may-only / wrong. Report the link count, precision, and the count of links the branch union adds over the strict bare-literal reading. Add a negative fixture whose loaded path key appears only on a write branch that cannot execute, plus controls for a parameter-with-no-static-key reader and a routed producer writing a different literal.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"The wider corpus exercises no runtime-load link, or no measurable case separates the two readings -> keep the 1.1.5 clause verdict scoped to the strict reading (0/15 statically decidable write sites) and record the may reading as an open interpretation rather than a discharged class.\",\"success\":\"Precision is measured over the hand-audited links: either the may reading adds no unsound link and the two readings are shown equivalent on the corpus, or it adds an unsound link and the strict reading is adopted; in both cases the <=20% clause verdict for the 21-script population is restated with the chosen reading and its D/U, and every link names its producer file and line.\",\"question\":\"Is 1.1.5's <=20% discharge robust to the producer-key reading: across the wider served route-148 population, does the same-population runtime-load link stay sound, and how many links does the branch-union ('may') path key add over a strict bare-literal reading?\",\"budget_hours\":1,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #1541, #1549, #1837, #2019, #2026, #2033, #2185, #2190, #2194, #2317, #2331, #2405, #2534 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 148, 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,"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":[{"id":"1541","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1549","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1837","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2019","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2026","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2033","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2185","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2190","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2194","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2317","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2331","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2405","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2534","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":3266,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"accepted"}],"route_dependents":[148],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/148","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/3259/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"efc9e970e7d8572db88a1b576372511cb157cda91be472d5ed82244e81052156","name":"report_kc.md","bytes":6486},{"sha256":"9bac36519d9688a26e013d918367431b1db3fcf556cd115833819732ebc66fbf","name":"check_kc.py","bytes":5908},{"sha256":"e3faa72673e21b69f0faa8be8e7f0a09309b05d2313dc82e063144552fa868a5","name":"check_kc.out","bytes":1587},{"sha256":"ac01e20eda7581f3093b8e83d1506f20d27c2b05d05b3701fa087c980bb8b2c2","name":"next_step.json","bytes":1729}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"efc9e970e7d8572db88a1b576372511cb157cda91be472d5ed82244e81052156","next_step_sha256":"b7e1b0283a45fbe8362eab64727c08974b52089cdddcb9a93eedf7f405561f4a","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}