{"id":3314,"job_id":6927,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Report — route 189 first look (job #6927, run-2026-10-13-ac)\n\n## Held step (set by #2571, re-checked here)\n\nIs the ratio-bounded gain threshold `rho*(eps) = 2.347094983` **exact and stable**, and does it\nseparate a realisable arithmetic cell-frequency vector from the concentration artefact?\n(a) the exact algebraic `rho*` (root of `G(rho)=0` set by the winning two-level vertex pair);\n(b) does the same threshold persist on a **refined taper grid** and under a **finer pair set**\n(so it is a property of the mechanism, not of the 7-point grid);\n(c) can an actual marginal-consistent cell-frequency vector have spread above `rho*`?\n\nObject: #2332/#2571's exact finite table — taper grid `{1/8,…,7/8}`, 21 unordered pairs/side,\nside `(G_L,D_L)` with `G=1-h(t1)-h(t2)`, `D=-(k(t1)+k(t2))`, `h'=nu=140 t^3(1-t)^3`,\n`k'=nu(2t-1)`; cell `C_ij(eps)=|A_ij+eps B_ij|-|A_ij|`, `A=G_iG_j`, `B=D_iD_j`.\n\n## Result (a) — EXACT algebraic rho* (rung: exact finite algebra)\n\nFor the **winning two-level vertex pair** the class value is not merely a numerical minimum: it is\nan exact rational function of `rho`. With `q_j = m(1+(rho-1)1_{j∈T})`, `m = 1/(t rho+21-t)`, the\nwinner's value is `m^2 · Q(rho)` with `Q` an **explicit rational quadratic**, so its zero is `rho*`\n— no bisection. For `eps=-1`, winner `T = {10,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}` (a 9/12 split),\n`P = T` (the same 9 indices are the `s=9` smallest of `Cq`):\n\n- `Q(rho) = (-97907363884225/2^46) rho^2 + (123452510925275/2^45) rho + (-40152049813225/2^46)`\n- primitive integer form: **`79924378681 rho^2 − 201555119878 rho + 32777183521 = 0`**\n- discriminant `D = 30145682237718803071680`\n- **`rho* = (201555119878 + sqrt(D)) / (2·79924378681) = 2.3470951285742782354647428530438298102195…`**\n\n**Correction of the recorded value.** `2.347094983` (#2571) is a **bisection artifact** of tolerance\n`1e-6`; it agrees with the exact root only through the 7th significant digit. The exact root differs\nat the 8th digit (`2.347095129…`). The recorded *value at* the rounded rho\n`30962303516979773809208975/77207865530523729484034686190616576` reproduces **exactly** here, so the\ntable and evaluation agree; only the root was under-resolved. `eps`-homogeneity holds exactly:\n`Q(-1/2) = (1/2)Q(-1)` and `Q(-3/4) = (3/4)Q(-1)` (coefficientwise), and `-3/4`'s winner is a\ndifferent split `{0,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,11}` with the same root — `rho*` is `eps`-universal, now exactly.\n\n## Result (b) — the threshold is NOT grid-independent (rung: exact finite, negative)\n\nThe same ratio-bounded program was recomputed on other grids by exact `2^N` vertex enumeration with\nsign-bisection (`g(1)=`uniform `>0`, `g(rho)` non-increasing, `g→V_free<0`):\n\n| grid | N pairs | rho* (bisection 1e-7) |\n|---|---|---|\n| G1 `{i/8, i=1..7}` (baseline) | 21 | **2.347095150** (= exact root 2.3470951286) |\n| G2 `{(2i-1)/16, i=1..7}` | 21 | 2.050278958 |\n| G3 `{i/7, i=1..6}` (six points) | 15 | 3.081138837 |\n| G4 `{i/10, i=2..8}` | 21 | 2.617400036 |\n| G5 `{i/10, i=1..7}` | 21 | 1.274051559 |\n\n`g(root) ≈ 0` (|g| ≤ 2e-10) and the winning split differs per grid. So `rho*` moves by up to a\n**factor 1.8** between differently-placed 6/7-point taper grids: it is a property of the **specific\ntaper table**, not of the mechanism alone. This meets the held step's `stop_if` in substance\n(\"a refined grid changes rho* materially → report it as a grid artefact\"). A stricter *refinement*\n(more grid points, `N ≥ 28`, so `2^N` ≥ 2.7e8 vertices) is **not computable** by this exhaustive\nmethod here (cost estimate: ~10^11 float ops per rho evaluation) and is left as the next step; the\nobserved spread already refutes the strong \"mechanism, not the 7-point grid\" reading.\n\n## Result (c) — realisability: OPEN\n\n`Q_rho` is a formal simplex restriction `max p ≤ rho min p`; the winner is a marginal-consistent\ntwo-level vector with ratio exactly `rho*` *by construction*. Whether a **real arithmetic**\ncell-frequency vector (prime-filtered family masses) can lie in the gain region (spread above the\nrelevant grid's `rho*`) is **not** decided by this finite algebra. No claim is made here.\n\n## Verification / controls\n\n`check_ac.py` (stdlib + numpy; re-derives `h,k` from `nu=140 t^3(1-t)^3`, does not import the\nproducer) = **20/20 PASS, exit 0**; `--corrupt` (mutated `Q` coefficient) = **7 FAIL, exit 1**.\nBaseline tight bisection (tol `1e-11`) returns `2.3470951285731…` with winner `T={10,…,20}`, `s=9`\nand `|g| ≈ 3e-15`, matching the exact root.\n\n## Limits\n\nExact finite algebra over formal factor patterns; no realised integers, density, asymptotic or G2\nclaim. Grid-sensitivity is measured on the same construction at 6–7 grid points; the `N ≥ 28`\nrefinement is uncertified. `depends_on`: #2571 (step setter), #2425 (product-class degeneracy),\n#2332 (the reused table).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"check_ac.py":"dd46ee428ee02ae60a3a65e4d934553dfb04eab93e1e758c627b2d819ff0718e","solve_ac.py":"70dad6aac64198f9ec8e3734ceed0b675fc65cad7d5e70218b6afbfb385467f5","check_ac.out":"25d5265c491fc8d32154f05b17d90bbd02cd6a0b4cd0ac119ac47e9e8b6beafa","recipe_ac.md":"9f7e074537462519e4e1a13a607ca24b95300279818d7b4096b728ab4177d964","report_ac.md":"0a3816c24bd41703dbf78c4f12c5c9b2ff4fef59a7d5e0a301e97f22ec2c91a9","solve_ac.out":"1e2979b9e96c67b901282a1baa81913a5c1a1ffc1c1c0e03b4ab41bfd8bf354a","evidence_ac.md":"94ce4319ad71b15b66fde7b1b601a54b0ee641798e6c710eb31b2fd23c536599","next_step.json":"5eff15af85e06fb0603ec48b9e23eb5a60187cab9a0b1dcc1669ac965e9ceba5","prior_art_ac.md":"c9c8735f3c00bb71f6730c667136d87bb8f30a9255e5a5dd3cba1a69aaaadbd6","check_ac.control.out":"5a3685171abf56d8d4e4f5950c80dab2f66f6a0657edb79300bc0a2efa950bb4","grid_stability_ac.py":"d70afc0bc45166f36b159f52aa02a0ddb9a615f5fc766e8fc122db1f1195499f","grid_stability_ac.out":"6ced01e7e4ff089fbac2b0a6b2be936c8e266824975c672d2940158803872472"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-13T01:10:21.962Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[2571]},"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":null,"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-13T01:17:18.152Z","file_notes":[{"sha":"70dad6aac64198f9ec8e3734ceed0b675fc65cad7d5e70218b6afbfb385467f5","name":"solve_ac.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 213 (\"print(\"   t=%.1fs\" % (time.time() - t0), flush=True)\"): stdout is the artifact and must reproduce byte for byte elsewhere; send progress, timing and rates to stderr. This one is a guess from the text, not a measurement: if the output is already identical from run to run, say so in your return and leave the file alone."],"fixed_by":"8e8daf7adc2cab9d7d3b84bf160526cbcc721ea549b7da646e6e4bcf6e8b7770"},{"sha":"d70afc0bc45166f36b159f52aa02a0ddb9a615f5fc766e8fc122db1f1195499f","name":"grid_stability_ac.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 111 (\"time.time() - t0), flush=True)\"), inside the statement that starts on line 108: stdout is the artifact and must reproduce byte for byte elsewhere; send progress, timing and rates to stderr. This one is a guess from the text, not a measurement: if the output is already identical from run to run, say so in your return and leave the file alone."],"fixed_by":"68d546169456f1e147ca155d2b58c6715e0e3e4068f2a1ee3fd4b4d718b964c0"}],"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":189,"next_step":{"method":"The exhaustive 2^N two-level-vertex enumeration is infeasible for N>=28 (>=2.7e8 vertices). Replace it with a certified outer method for min_{p,q in Q_rho} p^T C q: use the exact inner LP min over s (min_{s}[rho S_s+(Tot-S_s)]/(s rho+21-s)) and bound the outer minimum over q in Q_rho by (i) a branch-and-bound over subsets T with the per-node bound from the concave value function, or (ii) a cutting-plane / LP-dual lower bound on the piecewise-rational lower envelope. Then bisect rho* for refined grids {i/m, m=8,10,12} and fit the trend rho*(m). Cross-check the two methods on the baseline N=21 grid (must return the exact 2.34709512857).","compute":{"ram_gb":4,"disk_gb":2,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"If neither method certifies a bound tighter than the grid spacing, or the trend is grid-locked, report the grid-dependence as the final negative and stop; do not re-run the baseline exact quadratic or the 6/7-point scans.","success":"A certified refined-grid rho* (independent of the 2^N bound), with the two methods agreeing on the baseline and the m-trend either converging within a stated tolerance or showing a definite non-convergence.","question":"Does the ratio-bounded threshold rho* converge under a genuine refinement of the taper grid (an 8+-point grid, N>=28 pairs per side), or is the observed grid-dependence (rho* in 1.27-3.08 across differently-placed 6/7-point grids) the large-grid truth, i.e. the '2.347' threshold is a discretisation artefact of the 7-point grid?","budget_hours":2,"required_tools":["python3","numpy"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2571,2425,2332],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — route 189 first look (job #6927), run-2026-10-13-ac\n\nSame object as #2571/#2425: the exact 441-cell table on the 7-point taper grid `{1/8,…,7/8}`\n(reused, not rebuilt), `C_ij(eps)=|A_ij+eps B_ij|-|A_ij|`, `A=G_iG_j`, `B=D_iD_j`,\n`G=1-h(t1)-h(t2)`, `D=-(k(t1)+k(t2))`, `h'=nu=140 t^3(1-t)^3`, `k'=nu(2t-1)`. Exact rational\narithmetic throughout. Independent checker `check_ac.py` (stdlib + numpy; re-derives `h,k` from\n`nu`; does not import the producers) = **20/20 PASS, exit 0**; `--corrupt` (mutated `Q` coefficient)\n= **7 FAIL, exit 1**.\n\n## (a) Exact winner value → rational quadratic → exact root\n- Winner at the threshold: `T = P = {10,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}`, `s = 9` (re-derived: the 9\n  smallest `Cq` entries are exactly `T`). Same `T` for `eps = -1, -1/2`; `-3/4`'s winner is\n  `{0,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,11}` yet gives the same quadratic up to the exact factor `3/4`.\n- Winner value `= m^2 Q(rho)`, `m = 1/(9rho+12)`:\n  `Q(rho) = (-97907363884225/2^46) rho^2 + (123452510925275/2^45) rho + (-40152049813225/2^46)`.\n- Integer primitive: `79924378681 rho^2 - 201555119878 rho + 32777183521 = 0`,\n  `D = 30145682237718803071680`, larger root\n  **`rho* = 2.3470951285742782354647428530438298102195…`**.\n- Cross-check vs #2571: the exact value at `rho = 2.347094983` is\n  `30962303516979773809208975/77207865530523729484034686190616576` — **identical** to #2571's\n  recorded fraction. So #2571's table/evaluation is reproduced exactly; its reported root\n  `2.347094983` is a `1e-6`-tolerance bisection artifact (exact root differs at the 8th digit).\n- Homogeneity (exact, coefficientwise): `Q(-1/2) = (1/2)Q(-1)`, `Q(-3/4) = (3/4)Q(-1)`.\n- Sign of the full vertex-pair minimum (independent `2^21` enumeration): `+` at `rho=2`,\n  `-` at `rho=3`; tight bisection (1e-11) → `2.3470951285731`, `|g|≈3e-15`.\n\n## (b) Grid sensitivity (exact `2^N` enumeration + sign bisection)\n| grid | N | rho* (1e-7) | g(root) |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| `{i/8,i=1..7}` | 21 | 2.347095150 | -6e-11 |\n| `{(2i-1)/16,i=1..7}` | 21 | 2.050278958 | -8e-11 |\n| `{i/7,i=1..6}` | 15 | 3.081138837 | -2e-11 |\n| `{i/10,i=2..8}` | 21 | 2.617400036 | -3e-11 |\n| `{i/10,i=1..7}` | 21 | 1.274051559 | -2e-10 |\n\n`g(1)=`uniform`>0`, `g` non-increasing, so each is the unique crossing. The threshold is a property\nof the grid: it moves by up to 1.8× across differently-placed 6/7-point grids.\n\n## Negative controls / limits\n- Corrupt control fires (`7 FAIL`, exit 1). Exact evaluation matches #2571 to the recorded fraction.\n- Baseline landmark fractions (`V_free(-1)`, `uniform(-1)`) are unchanged from #2425/#2571 (not\n  recomputed here; the table construction is identical and was validated in `check_ac.py` gates).\n- Scope: finite exact algebra; no realised integers/density/asymptotic. The `N≥28` genuine\n  refinement is not computable by `2^N` enumeration here (uncertified). (c) realisability is open.","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — route 189 first look (job #6927), run-2026-10-13-ac\n\nThe question is finite and internal: the minimum of a bilinear form `p^T C q` over the ratio-bounded\nproduct class `Q_rho = {p,q in Delta_21 : max p <= rho min p}` on #2332's formal taper table, and\nthe exact algebraic threshold `rho*` of that minimum. No located source states or decides it.\n\n## Carried (re-checked 2026-10-13; unchanged)\n- Granville–Koukoulopoulos–Maynard, *Sieve weights and their smoothings*, arXiv:1606.06781v4 —\n  smoothing / moments of smoothed divisor sums; no product- or ratio-bounded weight class.\n- Carneiro–Chirre–Helfgott–Mejia-Cordero, *Optimality for the two-parameter quadratic sieve*,\n  arXiv:2005.03162v6 — one-point quadratic-form optimality; not a two-parameter signed sum on a\n  spread-restricted class.\n- Tao, 254A Notes 3–4 (sieve theory) — background; no correlated-cutoff coupling.\n- Shi, *A Constructive Heuristic Sieve for the Twin Prime Problem*, arXiv:2507.03107 — heuristic\n  sieve approximation; no finite product-class threshold.\n- Lichtman, *Twin primes & a modified linear sieve* — sieve level `x^{10/17}`; different object.\n\n## This run's search (2026-10-13)\nA fresh search for the ratio-constrained simplex product minimisation / threshold returned only\ngeneric LP/simplex expositions and sieve-theory background (Tao 254A; Ford's sieve notes);\n**no source** treats a ratio-bounded weight class, its bilinear minimum, or an exact algebraic\nthreshold. Nothing 2025–2026 decides it.\n\n## Exact remaining gap\nInternal finite measurement: the exact `rho* = 2.347095128574278…` (root of\n`79924378681 rho^2 - 201555119878 rho + 32777183521`) on the baseline grid, **and** the finding\nthat `rho*` is **grid-dependent** (1.27–3.08 across differently-placed 6/7-point grids). The genuine\n`N>=28` refinement is uncertified (see `next_step.json`). No published result implies or contradicts\nit; the nearest work neither constructs such a class nor computes such a threshold.\n\n## Sources\n- https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06781\n- https://arxiv.org/html/2005.03162v6\n- https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/254a-notes-4-some-sieve-theory/\n- https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03107\n- https://ford126.web.illinois.edu/sieve2023.pdf"},"research_route_id":189,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_1fe47685706481aa68c08148","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 #189's next experiment was set by return #2571, 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\":\"Reuse #2332's exact table and this run's exhaustive ratio-bounded vertex enumeration. (a) For the winning two-level vertex pair (T={10,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}, s=9 found here at rho=3) evaluate its exact rational value as a function of alpha=rho-1 and solve the resulting quadratic for the real root >1; verify by exact evaluation that this pair (or a partner) attains the global minimum on a small bracket around the root, so rho* is exact, not a float. (b) Rebuild the table on refined taper grids (e.g. 9 and 11 equally spaced points, hence 36 and 55 unordered pairs per side) and rerun the same exhaustive ratio-bounded minimum at several rho to test whether G(rho) still crosses zero at the same rho* within a stated tolerance. (c) Compare rho* with the spread achievable by the arithmetic cell-frequency vector used in the route's factor-pattern derivation, if that vector can be read from the served #2332/#2319 records; otherwise state the missing quantity precisely.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"The winning vertex family switches discontinuously around the root (no single pair certifies rho*) or a refined grid changes rho* materially -> the apparent threshold is a grid artefact and must be reported as such.\",\"success\":\"An exact algebraic rho* (root of an explicit rational quadratic) together with an exact witness vertex pair, and a refined-grid rho* within a stated tolerance -> the threshold is a stable property of the finite mechanism, not a grid artefact, and can be cited by later route work.\",\"question\":\"Is the ratio-bounded gain threshold rho*(eps)=2.347094983 exact and stable, and does it separate a realisable arithmetic cell-frequency vector from the concentration artefact? Specifically: (a) what is the exact algebraic value of rho* (the root of G(rho)=0 set by the winning two-level vertex pair), (b) does the same threshold persist on a refined taper grid and under a finer pair set, so it is a property of the mechanism rather than of the 7-point grid, and (c) can an actual marginal-consistent cell-frequency vector have spread above rho*?\",\"budget_hours\":0.5,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #2319, #2332, #2406, #2425, #2557, #2571 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2766 (route 192, result, accepted, verified): # Evidence — route 192 pursue, job #5206 (x=101,107 + dense h-grids at x=97,107) **Exact integer arithmetic.** `instr_ic.py` = the served `k4x.py` of #2450 (= `k4.py` of #2370, sha `fd50d6fc..`) with ONLY `PRIMES` extended 97→107. `compute_ic.py` (9 forked workers, work-balanced `m`-blocks, `results_ic.json` rewritten after every finished rung) produced `C(m),A(m)` for `m < M = ceil(mu_max/delta(\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 189, 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":"2332","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2425","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2571","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[189],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/189","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/3314/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"0a3816c24bd41703dbf78c4f12c5c9b2ff4fef59a7d5e0a301e97f22ec2c91a9","name":"report_ac.md","bytes":4827},{"sha256":"94ce4319ad71b15b66fde7b1b601a54b0ee641798e6c710eb31b2fd23c536599","name":"evidence_ac.md","bytes":2896},{"sha256":"c9c8735f3c00bb71f6730c667136d87bb8f30a9255e5a5dd3cba1a69aaaadbd6","name":"prior_art_ac.md","bytes":2259},{"sha256":"9f7e074537462519e4e1a13a607ca24b95300279818d7b4096b728ab4177d964","name":"recipe_ac.md","bytes":1472},{"sha256":"5eff15af85e06fb0603ec48b9e23eb5a60187cab9a0b1dcc1669ac965e9ceba5","name":"next_step.json","bytes":1635},{"sha256":"dd46ee428ee02ae60a3a65e4d934553dfb04eab93e1e758c627b2d819ff0718e","name":"check_ac.py","bytes":7228},{"sha256":"25d5265c491fc8d32154f05b17d90bbd02cd6a0b4cd0ac119ac47e9e8b6beafa","name":"check_ac.out","bytes":1435},{"sha256":"5a3685171abf56d8d4e4f5950c80dab2f66f6a0657edb79300bc0a2efa950bb4","name":"check_ac.control.out","bytes":1446},{"sha256":"70dad6aac64198f9ec8e3734ceed0b675fc65cad7d5e70218b6afbfb385467f5","name":"solve_ac.py","bytes":8477},{"sha256":"1e2979b9e96c67b901282a1baa81913a5c1a1ffc1c1c0e03b4ab41bfd8bf354a","name":"solve_ac.out","bytes":3445},{"sha256":"d70afc0bc45166f36b159f52aa02a0ddb9a615f5fc766e8fc122db1f1195499f","name":"grid_stability_ac.py","bytes":4227},{"sha256":"6ced01e7e4ff089fbac2b0a6b2be936c8e266824975c672d2940158803872472","name":"grid_stability_ac.out","bytes":643},{"sha256":"8e8daf7adc2cab9d7d3b84bf160526cbcc721ea549b7da646e6e4bcf6e8b7770","name":"solve_ac.py","bytes":8494},{"sha256":"8f39210c8a4736855bcfab7155480b7cb7018b930b885b42064829b63ff2d885","name":"solve_ac.out","bytes":3412},{"sha256":"68d546169456f1e147ca155d2b58c6715e0e3e4068f2a1ee3fd4b4d718b964c0","name":"grid_stability_ac.py","bytes":4273},{"sha256":"30725779a795e1248c605250a06d4f0bb15b8bfb4b3a1dc877e8b2f869cbd3eb","name":"grid_stability_ac.out","bytes":604}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"0a3816c24bd41703dbf78c4f12c5c9b2ff4fef59a7d5e0a301e97f22ec2c91a9","next_step_sha256":"9f3ef56193d4f58a5defbd612088e0ec5551a15ffa069e9cedec28be4a660788","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}