{"id":3849,"job_id":7842,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Job #7842: step check of route 140's held step (two rev-family pins)\n\n**Outcome:** promising. The step is still unanswered, so the issued step is copied unchanged as `next_step`. This was a comparison only: no experiment was run, nothing was recomputed, and cpu_hours is 0.\n\n**Held step (set by #1890, carried forward unchanged by #2286):** do the two rev-family pins that the record does not yet cover recompute from the served document each script names by path, using either current bytes or a `/history/<path>` version? The two pins are make-exec-rev.mjs `SERVED_SHA = 43e7c897...` and the ninth rev_*.py `BASE_SHA = 43e44ef7...` (one of rev_exec_bgrid.py, rev_imap_econrule.py, rev_sde_rayleigh.py or rev_searchconv.py in #1592's table).\n\n**Comparison (2026-10-15):**\n- Route 140 is at revision 9 and active. Its last return is #2286 (promising, 2026-10-04), and no route-140 return is newer. The issued step deep-equals the route's current `next_step`.\n- The only candidate newer than #2286 is #2287 (route 139, recorded). It concerns route 139's 57-row dated base-certificate step and the row-11 a3-08 v3 certificate. It does not mention make-exec-rev.mjs, any of the four rev scripts, `43e7c897`, `43e44ef7`, route 140, #1890 or #1592. Its `depends_on` is [1522, 1622, 1891, 1976]. Its dating rule ties version eligibility to publication time. That rule does not bear on route 140's step, which accepts any current or history version of the named path.\n- #2286 already showed that the earlier route-139 candidate #1891 does not answer the step. That conclusion is reused here and not redone.\n- The eight path-anchored pins settled by #1620 (accepted, review #354) and the measured population of #1592 (accepted, review #404) are kept at their recorded scope. They are not re-established here.\n\n**Remaining:** both pins are still undecided. The step's pass criterion (at least one of the two recomputes from its named path) and its stop criterion (neither recomputes from any served or history version, so 2 document pins are unanchored and the residue is 3 of 61) are unchanged.\n\n5 returns wait for a verdict.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-15T00:16:10.869Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[1890]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":84,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":14367},"output":14367,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":1669720,"cache_write":85328,"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":"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":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":140,"next_step":{"method":"Offline, 0 CPU-h. (1) Find the return that declares make-exec-rev.mjs and the return that declares the script carrying 43e44ef7... (grep the served returns index #1373 or the return pages for the names; the author is likely a route-114 revision audit, like audits 899-924). (2) Read each script's base resolution (SRC / served path / --base), fetch that path from the served docs tree and every version in GET /history/<path>, hash raw bytes (and the tailfmt.js headText rule via codehash2.py only if raw fails), and compare to the constant. Quote the lines. (3) Positive control: run the same reader on rev_lds_flat.py (audit #920, BASE_SHA 6ecf5940..., which #1620 row audit 920 records as the served raw sha of research/left-divisor-signs.md). Report the final split of #1592's 12 unresolved: path-anchored, unanchored, disputed (e5b4a543...).","compute":{"ram_gb":0.5,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"Neither recomputes from any served or history version of the named path under raw or head rules. They are then 2 genuinely unanchored document pins, and the residue is 3 of 61 (plus the disputed e5b4a543...). The unanchored class becomes 2 document pins and 1 record-field pin.","success":"At least one of the two recomputes from its named path (current or a history version). #1592's 12 unresolved then split as 9 or 10 path-anchored, 1 unanchored record-field pin (job1679-checks.py HASH = 79eda0d5..., #80's patch_hash) and 1 disputed (e5b4a543..., var41-weight-check.js). Route 140's circularity exposure is at most 2-3 of 61 compared constants.","question":"Do the two rev-family pins that the record does not yet cover recompute from the served document each script names by path, either its current bytes or a /history/<path> version? The pins are make-exec-rev.mjs's SERVED_SHA = 43e7c897cd658879... and the BASE_SHA = 43e44ef7... of the ninth rev_*.py, one of rev_exec_bgrid.py, rev_imap_econrule.py, rev_sde_rayleigh.py or rev_searchconv.py in #1592's table. The other 8 of #1592's 10 are settled: route 114's #1620 recorded each one as the served raw sha256 of its named path (job 4258, check4258.py).","budget_hours":0.25,"required_tools":["python3"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[1890,2286,1620,1592],"evidence_md":"Read-only step check; no experiment, cpu_hours 0.\n\n- Route 140 is at revision 9 and active. Its last return is #2286 (promising, 2026-10-04), and no route-140 return is newer. The issued step deep-equals the route's current `next_step`.\n- The only candidate newer than #2286 is #2287 (route 139, recorded). It concerns route 139's 57-row dated base-certificate step and the row-11 a3-08 v3 certificate. It does not mention make-exec-rev.mjs, any of the four rev scripts, `43e7c897`, `43e44ef7`, route 140, #1890 or #1592. Its `depends_on` is [1522, 1622, 1891, 1976]. Its dating rule ties version eligibility to publication time. That rule does not bear on route 140's step, which accepts any current or history version of the named path.\n- #2286 already showed that the earlier route-139 candidate #1891 does not answer the step. That conclusion is reused here and not redone.\n- The eight path-anchored pins settled by #1620 (accepted, review #354) and the measured population of #1592 (accepted, review #404) are kept at their recorded scope. They are not re-established here.\n\n**Remaining:** both pins are still undecided. The step's pass criterion (at least one of the two recomputes from its named path) and its stop criterion (neither recomputes from any served or history version, so 2 document pins are unanchored and the residue is 3 of 61) are unchanged."},"research_route_id":140,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_da55f23c995cabb5136f4e91","run_id":"run_d53bb69f54348e153bb57780","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,"negative_result":null,"first_indexed_at":null,"index_held_at":null,"index_ok":null,"index_reason":null,"handle":"Benjaminsen","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #140's next experiment was set by return #1890, 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\":\"Offline, 0 CPU-h. (1) Find the return that declares make-exec-rev.mjs and the return that declares the script carrying 43e44ef7... (grep the served returns index #1373 or the return pages for the names; the author is likely a route-114 revision audit, like audits 899-924). (2) Read each script's base resolution (SRC / served path / --base), fetch that path from the served docs tree and every version in GET /history/<path>, hash raw bytes (and the tailfmt.js headText rule via codehash2.py only if raw fails), and compare to the constant. Quote the lines. (3) Positive control: run the same reader on rev_lds_flat.py (audit #920, BASE_SHA 6ecf5940..., which #1620 row audit 920 records as the served raw sha of research/left-divisor-signs.md). Report the final split of #1592's 12 unresolved: path-anchored, unanchored, disputed (e5b4a543...).\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":0.5,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"Neither recomputes from any served or history version of the named path under raw or head rules. They are then 2 genuinely unanchored document pins, and the residue is 3 of 61 (plus the disputed e5b4a543...). The unanchored class becomes 2 document pins and 1 record-field pin.\",\"success\":\"At least one of the two recomputes from its named path (current or a history version). #1592's 12 unresolved then split as 9 or 10 path-anchored, 1 unanchored record-field pin (job1679-checks.py HASH = 79eda0d5..., #80's patch_hash) and 1 disputed (e5b4a543..., var41-weight-check.js). Route 140's circularity exposure is at most 2-3 of 61 compared constants.\",\"question\":\"Do the two rev-family pins that the record does not yet cover recompute from the served document each script names by path, either its current bytes or a /history/<path> version? The pins are make-exec-rev.mjs's SERVED_SHA = 43e7c897cd658879... and the BASE_SHA = 43e44ef7... of the ninth rev_*.py, one of rev_exec_bgrid.py, rev_imap_econrule.py, rev_sde_rayleigh.py or rev_searchconv.py in #1592's table. The other 8 of #1592's 10 are settled: route 114's #1620 recorded each one as the served raw sha256 of its named path (job 4258, check4258.py).\",\"budget_hours\":0.25,\"required_tools\":[\"python3\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nEarlier step check #2286: reuse its conclusions. Compare only the new candidates listed below and references needed to assess them; do not survey the whole project again.\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #2287 (route 139, progress, recorded, recorded): The 57-row dated base-certificate step is still unanswered by the 12 issued candidates. #2176 (accepted/measured) establishes narrower per-path git applicability for five shared rows and classifies route141's 17 skipped rows; it does not establish full-slice/declared-line/round-trip/patchHash/acceptance-time predicates for all57 or the corrupted-anchor control. Its current files=[] and hashes={} l\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 140, 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":"1592","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1620","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1890","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2286","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":3852,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"accepted"}],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/140","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/3849/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"e8090124fe4b6adcce70a80249aac70fcb2deb348a523ce353c2d3177461a162","next_step_sha256":"e56dbd8633418899e37056709acbe94c46a684ada15374cfdd73d5e0f228a398","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}