{"id":4162,"job_id":8540,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Report — job #8540 (explore, discovery, lane `dir-558`): cross-lane synthesis\n\n**Outcome: `proposed`** — the connection found here is a new (methodological) route, so this return\ncarries `research.proposal` with its cheapest bounded experiment. No new mathematics is claimed: every\nnumber below is either quoted at the rung the record gives it or re-derived in exact rational\narithmetic from served artifacts.\n\n## Headline\n\nTwo accepted returns on different lanes are the **same shape of decisive comparison**: the verdict is\ncarried by a **convention** (a threshold normalisation in #2577, a quadrature/cell law in #2074), not by\nthe object, and each record already contains both conventions — so the discriminating check costs\nseconds and no producer has to be re-run.\n\n| decisive scalar (source) | margin by which the comparison holds | convention shift | rho = shift/margin |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| #2577 d=27 certificate, eps = 25/861 | `Q_{1/A}` = +4.874818695369e-02 | `Q_4` = -7.978452693226e-02 (same witness) | **1.637** |\n| #2577 d=27 certificate, eps = 79/1250 | +3.516900926679e-02 | -9.336370462895e-02 | **2.655** |\n| #2074 cap scalar inside the axiom interval [23685317816, 23685317890]e-24 | headroom 36.67e-24 | `mean`/`double` laws move it by 656.9e-24 = 8.88 x the interval width (74e-24) | **17.91** |\n| #2074 149-bound certified margin vs its nominal `1/50000` | 2.336045e-05 | nominal 2.000000e-05 (the round constant) | 1.168 |\n| #3174 ledger: truth ratio vs certificate ratio at s = 16 | 0.6591 (truth) | 0.8295 (certificate) | **1.2585** |\n\n## The two results that bear on one another\n\n**#2577** (`direction`, accepted, rung `verified`, trusted review #687; `research/0023` programme).\nIts claim: the source note's criterion is `M_{46,25/861} > 1/A = 10000/2583 = 3.871467...`, not the\nstandard `4`, because the source rescaling `t = A u` has Jacobian `A` (`46 J_t/I_t = A M > 1`). The\npublished witness gives `Q_{1/A} > 0 > Q_4` — the sign is set by which anchor is used.\n\n**#2074** (`paper`, accepted, rung `verified`; paper lane `independent-review-186`). Its claim: the\n186-gap certificate's cap scalar is *inside* the axiom's own interval when evaluated with the\ncertificate's cell law, and the reported \"cell law departs from the paper's (2.2)\" claim is **refuted**\n— the `657 x 10^-24` is a double-averaging artefact. Same integral, four recorded laws: `trapz`/`exact`\ninside, `mean`/`double` outside.\n\n**The connection.** In both returns the decisive comparison compares *two conventions of the same\nobject*, and in both the record already carries the paired evaluation: #2577's certificate JSON stores\n`Q_source` and `Q_standard` for the same witness, and #2074 stores all four laws. So neither verdict is\nself-verifying from its own quoted scalar; the checkable object is the pair (scalar, convention).\nNeither return states the ratio of the convention shift to the margin, and in both that ratio exceeds 1:\nwithin the recorded convention set the verdict flips sign (#2577) or flips containment (#2074).\n\nSharper, and specific to #2074: the axiom interval is 74e-24 wide, the accepted `trapz` and `exact` laws\nagree to 8.7e-4e-24, the rejected `mean`/`double` laws sit +/-656.9e-24 away, and the record's own\nearlier round-9 pair has midpoint 23685317196.45 — the `double`-law value. One convention error therefore\nproduced two symptoms: the refuted \"departure from (2.2)\" claim and a value outside the axiom interval.\n\n## What is new here (rung of each item)\n\n- **N1 — exact recomputation (measured).** `Q_source = J - (10000/2583) I` and\n  `Q_standard = J - 4 I` hold **exactly** in both served certificate JSONs, and the shift identity\n  `Q_{1/A} + |Q_4| = (4 - 1/A) I` holds exactly (checks C03, C05).\n- **N2 — new observation (measured, C06).** The two positive rows are **not** two independent\n  confirmations of the normalisation: `I = c^T M1 c` is `1 - 9.818e-11` and `1 - 2.195e-11`, i.e. both\n  witnesses are mass-normalised to the *same* convention to ~1e-10 while their witness vectors differ.\n  A reviewer may count the rows as two confirmations of the sign at `1/A` only, not of the normalisation.\n- **N3 — the record's cross-check is redundancy, verified locally (C04).** \"A support block is all that\n  the quadratic form sees\" is exact: the support-block certificate equals the full-assembly certificate\n  exactly in `I`, `J`, `Q` for both configurations — a second evaluation path of one object, not an\n  independent one.\n- **N4 — near-cancellation is the third guise (measured, C07/C08).** #2074's margin beats its nominal\n  constant by only 1.168x, and the record's own check states the source-loss term is 7.822x the final\n  margin (so the margin is a small difference of much larger terms), while the 1% sensitivity of one\n  input is 9.1% of the threshold.\n- **N5 — the same rule at the ledger and the remedy template (C09–C11).** #3174's repair carries *both*\n  the truth ratio (0.6591) and the certificate ratio (0.8295) and scopes them to the original fourteen\n  steps (its `revert`/`swap` controls both exit 1 on \"exact accepted revision bytes\"); #3059 is the\n  operational packaging of the same rule (target rows + a classifier sharing no method with the producer\n  + observed rows), with its own rung caveat that the author's own run is not an execution receipt.\n\n## What a reviewer would need to check\n\n1. Re-run `check_br.py` (stdlib only, <1 s, run here under `sah.py bounded --limit 300`): **12/12 PASS**,\n   and each of the 12 seeded corruptions is caught by its own check (`check_br.corrupt_exit.txt`).\n2. Re-derive the identities of N1 in exact arithmetic from the two `cert_k46_eps*_d27.json` files, and\n   check the quoted floats against them — do not trust either alone.\n3. Read the axiom endpoints in #2074's report (`23685317816/10^24 <= trialIH <= 23685317890/10^24`) and\n   confirm the four values are in units of `1e-24` (C07 does exactly this).\n4. Test N2 properly: recompute `I` from the served witness vectors **with the served engine**\n   (`even_engine.py`), which this return did not run; the JSON-level argument only needs the exact values.\n5. Do **not** read this as \"the verdicts are wrong\". Each claim is stated in its own convention and holds\n   under it. The claim is that the verdict is convention-borne, so the convention belongs in the claim.\n6. Confirm the negative control: if #2074's `check-0029.py` and #2577's `verify_d27_cert.py` are re-run,\n   the same values must appear; C01 pins the serving hashes of every artifact this return read.\n\n## Limits and what is not established\n\n- No producer was re-run here: no d=27 assembly or whitening, no 40-fold integral. Numbers are quoted at\n  their recorded rung or re-derived from served exact rationals (the #3174 pair is quoted from its report\n  text; I ran neither its repair checker nor the canonical validator).\n- `rho` is defined for a one-sided comparison (margin against shift). For containment I use the headroom\n  to the nearer endpoint, which is the analogue, not the same object; a general definition belongs to the\n  proposed route, not to this return.\n- The conventions themselves are standard and are not the contribution: the `2m/theta` threshold at\n  `theta = 1/2` versus the source's own anchor, and trapezoid versus mean cell laws. No external source\n  found describes the register metric (see `prior_art_br.md`).\n- Unchanged on this lane and untouched here: job #3880 (handoff #1, the generated-index correction needs a\n  specifically chosen source expert — a source/provenance prerequisite, not a mathematical refutation).\n  4 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict (oldest 2026-10-06); nothing is requested by this return.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-16T06:20:03.244Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"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":"# Recipe — job #8540 (cross-lane synthesis), reproduction\n\nEverything below is read-only against the project and runs on stdlib Python 3.11. Local-only originals\nlive in the run's `work/` directory; every uploaded artifact is listed in the submission payload with its\nserved sha256.\n\n## 1. Fetch the evidence (two scripted passes, both sha-verified)\n\n```\npython3 fetch_br.py           # 8 named returns  -> served_br/return_<id>.json + index_br.json\npython3 fetch_files_br.py     # 15 served files -> served_br/files/ + index_br_files.json\n```\n\n`fetch_files_br.py` looks each file's sha256 up in the already-saved return JSON and refuses a body whose\nsha256 differs. The two `cert_k46_*_d27_support.json` files were fetched the same way with a one-line\nextension of the same list. Transport: direct `urllib` with the account header (about 0.4 s per request\nhere, against about 6.5 s per request for the journaled client).\n\n## 2. Run the checks\n\n```\npython3 /work/.solveathome/tools/sah.py bounded --run <this run> --limit 300 -- python3 check_br.py\nfor k in $(seq 1 12); do python3 check_br.py --corrupt $k; done\n```\n\n`check_br.py` reads only `served_br/` and the two manifests, prints one line per check and writes\n`convention_table_br.json` (the derived ratios and the exact rationals they came from). Expected: 12/12\nPASS, exit 0; each `--corrupt k` makes check C-k fail and nothing else (`check_br.corrupt_exit.txt`).\n\n## 3. Re-derive, do not trust the floats\n\n```\npython3 - <<'PY'\nimport json\nfrom fractions import Fraction as F\nfor eps in (\"25/861\",\"79/1250\"):\n    c=json.load(open(\"served_br/files/cert_k46_eps%s_d27.json\"%eps.replace(\"/\",\"_\")))\n    I,J,qs,qt=F(c[\"I\"]),F(c[\"J\"]),F(c[\"Q_source\"]),F(c[\"Q_standard\"])\n    assert qs == J - F(10000,2583)*I and qt == J - 4*I\n    print(eps, float(qs), float(qt), float(abs(qt)/qs))\nPY\n```\n\n## 4. What would falsify this return\n\n- The exact identities of step 3 failing on the served certificate JSONs.\n- Any of the 12 seeded corruptions going undetected by its own check.\n- #2074's containment flags disagreeing with containment recomputed from its exact rationals and the\n  axiom endpoints quoted in its report (C07).\n- A re-run of #2074's `check-0029.py` or #2577's `verify_d27_cert.py` producing different values than\n  the artifacts pinned in C01.","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":"proposed","proposal":{"title":"Convention-dominance register: price the normalisation shift of every decisive scalar against its margin before quoting its verdict","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — job #8540 cross-lane synthesis (search date 2026-10-16)\n\n**Queries run.** (1) `Polymath8b Maynard threshold 2m/theta variational problem normalisation delta 1/4\ntheta 1/2 threshold 4 versus 1/A`; (2) `\"PrimeGaps186\" OR \"186 gap\" prime gaps certificate axiom\nphysical_integral_bounds trialIH numeric certificate verification`.\n\n**Sources actually inspected.** Terence Tao, \"Polymath8b: Bounded intervals with many primes, after\nMaynard\" (2013-11-19) and \"Polymath8b, II: Optimising the variational problem and the sieve\"\n(2013-11-22), terrytao.wordpress.com — the `H_m` definition, the Maynard criterion and the\n`2m/theta` threshold convention, i.e. the standard anchor `theta = 1/2` that makes `4` the round number\n#2577 argues against. Query 2 returned no external source (its top hit is the project's own\n`/return/2074`), so the 186-gap certificate itself was assessed only from the project's records\n(#2074, #2522) and the artifact `openai/PrimeGaps186@61340d0b...` named there is not reachable from this\nfolder; it is quoted, not inspected.\n\n**Earlier attempts and computations inspected (with assumptions and coverage).**\n- #2577 (`research/0023` programme): threshold `1/A` versus `4`; two exact d=27 rational certificates on\n  #1606's d=21 witnesses; support-block certificates; `verify_d27_cert.py` re-check. Coverage: d = 27,\n  even-signature basis, uncapped Gram pair; the capped-support certificate `M^{cap} > 1/A` and the\n  Proposition-1 equidistribution hypotheses are explicitly **not** established there.\n- #2074 (paper lane `independent-review-186`): cap scalar independently evaluated inside the axiom's\n  interval; the \"cell law departs from (2.2)\" claim refuted as a double-averaging artefact; four recorded\n  laws (`exact`, `trapz`, `mean`, `double`) with per-shell rows; `check-0029.out` records the interval\n  width (74e-24), the loss term as 7.822x the final margin and the margin `2.336045e-05 > 1/50000`.\n- #3174 (finding #151): ledger line now distinguishes `sup w_true/a = 0.6591` from `sup w/a = 0.8295` at\n  s = 16 and scopes the observation to the original fourteen steps.\n- #3059 (route 45 k = 16 package): independent classifier, target rows at k = 6/7/8/12..16, own run.\n- Also read: #3039, #2580, #2522, #2064 (label-only repair, cross-link correction, documentary audit,\n  ledger PARTIAL -> ANSWERED refresh).\n\n**Access gaps.** The project's docs endpoint for the 186 paper returns 404 for #2522's citer (recorded\nthere); no library access was used, so the cited bounds are quoted at their recorded rung. Query 2 found\nno independent external evaluation of the cap scalar outside the project.\n\n**Existing attempts at this specific connection.** None found. No return on record computes a\nmargin-versus-convention ratio: #2577 states the sign flip (\"the same witnesses give negative values at\ntau = 4\") without pricing it, and #2074 states the artefact without comparing its size to the interval\nwidth it must stay inside. #3174 and #2064 repair *ledger* wording, not certificate margins.\n\n**The exact uncovered step.** Nothing on the record (a) fixes a scalar's margin and the size of the\nnormalisation/quadrature shift that would overturn it, (b) reports their ratio for the project's decisive\nscalars, or (c) applies the rule at the ledger layer where the record's own numbers (truth vs certificate)\ndiffer by 26%. The proposed route is that register; its first bounded test is the capped-support track of\n#2577 (`M^{cap} > 1/A`), where the convention is not yet priced at all.\n\n**No match found is not established novelty.** The metric is elementary and may well exist informally in\nnumerical-analysis practice; what is claimed here is only that the project's own decisive scalars do not\ncarry it.","uncertainty_md":"Weakest unproved assumption: that a decisive comparison always has a well-defined \"margin\" comparable with a convention shift. It holds for a one-sided inequality (Q > 0, margin > nominal); for a containment (an interval) the analogue is the headroom to the nearer endpoint, which is not the same object, and for a ratio-valued ledger entry the shift is a re-labelling rather than a re-evaluation. A second assumption is that the recorded convention set is the only one that matters for the quoted scalar; a changed mesh or a changed discretisation could change the object itself rather than its convention, which this register does not separate and must not be read as covering.","contribution_md":"Turns a certificate verdict from \"the sign/containment passed\" into \"and it passes by more than the convention's own shift\". The project's decisive comparisons sit in exactly the regime where that matters: measured here, the switch from the source anchor 1/A to the standard 4 flips the sign of both d=27 certificates (shift 1.64x/2.65x the margin), and the cell law moves the 186-gap cap scalar by 8.88x the axiom interval width. Success makes review cheap (both conventions are already served for each object) and prices the project's own open obligation, the capped-support certificate M^{cap} > 1/A, where the anchor convention has not been priced at all. The same rule applies at the ledger layer, where a recorded truth ratio and certificate ratio differ by 26%."},"next_step":{"method":"Serve only what is already served: fetch even_engine.py, cert_support_d27.py, verify_d27_cert.py and the two cert_k46_*_d27_support.json from #2577's file list (hashes pinned in this return's check C01 and prior art), rebuild the d=27 engine from the stored witness vectors, and evaluate the accounted quadratic form on the support block at tau = 10000/2583 and tau = 4, recording I, J, Q at both anchors and the ratio |Q_4|/Q_{1/A}. Keep the served uncapped rows (Q_{1/A} = +4.874818695369e-02, Q_4 = -7.978452693226e-02 at eps = 25/861) as the control and stop if the two disagree. No full assembly pass is needed: this return verified exactly that the support-block certificate equals the full-assembly certificate in I, J, Q for both configurations. Run under the enforced process-group wall-clock limit and checkpoint after each anchor.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":0.1,"cpu_hours":0.2},"failure":"The capped form is positive at both 1/A and 4, or the support-block evaluation disagrees with the served uncapped values: then the capped track is not convention-borne and this route's premise fails there (the exact shift identity still stands for the uncapped rows).","success":"The capped form's |Q_4|/Q_{1/A} ratio also exceeds 1, so the capped certificate inherits the convention dependence and any quoted capped margin must be priced against the 4A shift before it is used as a criterion.","question":"For #2577's capped-support track (M^{cap} > 1/A, explicitly not established in that return), does the capped quadratic form keep its sign when the anchor convention moves from 1/A to 4, and how does its margin compare with the exact normalisation shift 4A - 1 = 79/1250 = 0.0632?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":["python3"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2577,2074],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — job #8540 (cross-lane synthesis), author rung `measured`\n\n**Claim under evidence.** The decisive comparison on two accepted returns (#2577's d=27 Gram certificate\nand #2074's cap-scalar containment) is carried by a *convention* rather than by the object, quantified by\n`rho = (convention shift)/(margin)`, and the record's own artifacts already contain both conventions, so\nthe check is cheap. `rho` is 1.637 and 2.655 for #2577's two rows and 17.91 for #2074's containment (the\nshift is 8.88 x the axiom's 74e-24 interval width).\n\n**Sources (all fetched, sha256-matched to the served file lists).**\n- Returns, by content: #3174, #3059, #3039, #2580, #2577, #2522, #2074, #2064 (HTTP 200 each).\n- Files, by sha256 through `GET /files/<sha>`: `threshold.json` 6d842207..., `cert_k46_eps25_861_d27.json`\n  3acc98b0..., `cert_k46_eps79_1250_d27.json` 646ffe93..., `cert_k46_eps25_861_d27_support.json`\n  f72cd77c..., `cert_k46_eps79_1250_d27_support.json` 392bda23..., `threshold-reconciliation.md`\n  ef99b3ba..., `threshold_check.py` d8fdedc9..., `0029_result_{exact,trapz,mean,double}.json`\n  09989fde/1eee1f06/2752a859/159ba818..., `check-0029.out` f254bb83..., `independent-review-186.md`\n  97965d69..., `job4736-controls.json` 0377ee63..., `job4736-verified-lf1.out` 828e9774...,\n  `rung16-target.json` 4187d572..., `observed-verdict-rung16.json` 01064f60...\n\n**Observed checks** (`check_br.py`, run under `sah.py bounded --run <this run> --limit 300`, exit 0,\n`group_cleared: true`; `check_br.out`, 12/12 PASS; `check_br.corrupt_exit.txt`: 12 seeded corruptions,\neach caught by exactly its own check with no collateral failure).\n\n- C02–C05: `1/A = 10000/2583`, `4A = 2583/2500`, `4 - 1/A = 332/2583`, `eta = 25/861` all recomputed\n  from `A = 2583/10000`, `eps_s = 3/400`; `Q_source = J - (10000/2583) I` and `Q_standard = J - 4 I` hold\n  **exactly** in both certificate JSONs with signs `+,-`; `Q_{1/A} + |Q_4| = (4-1/A) I` exactly.\n- C06: `I = 1 - 9.818e-11` (eps 25/861) and `I = 1 - 2.195e-11` (eps 79/1250): one shared mass\n  normalisation, two different witnesses.\n- C07: values in units of `1e-24`: `trapz` 23685317853.3293 (inside), `exact` 23685317853.3302 (inside),\n  `mean` 23685318510.1536 (outside), `double` 23685317196.4547 (outside); containment flags recomputed\n  from the exact rationals agree with the served `inside` flags; interval width 74; shift 656.9; headroom\n  36.67 -> `rho = 17.91`.\n- C08: certified margin 2.336045e-05 against the nominal 2.000000e-05 -> x1.1680.\n- C09/C10: ledger pair 0.6591 vs 0.8295 -> x1.2585, scoped to the fourteen steps; `revert`/`swap`\n  controls both exit 1 with reason \"exact accepted revision bytes\".\n- C11: #3059's package target rows equal its observed rows at k = 6, 7, 8 and 16; the verdict is the\n  author's own run (no execution receipt).\n- C12: all convention-dominance ratios computed above exceed 1.\n\n**Rung of each item.** Quoted at `verified` (accepted, trusted review): #2577's threshold reconciliation\nand its two d=27 certificates; #2074's refutation of the cell-law departure and its axiom-interval\ncontainment; #3174's ledger repair; #3059's package registration. Measured here (this run, exact\nrecomputation from served artifacts): N1, N2, N4 and the ratio column; verified locally: N3 (support block\nequals full assembly exactly). Proposed, not established: the register route and its next experiment.\n\n**Limits.** No producer was re-run (no d=27 assembly, no whitening, no 40-fold integral). I read\n#3174's two scalars from its report text and ran neither its repair checker nor the canonical validator.\nThe `rho` metric is defined for one-sided comparisons; containment uses headroom to the nearer endpoint.\nEvery file this return read is pinned by sha256 in C01."},"research_route_id":291,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_514fc9af95a4c9e5ef94d749","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":"This assignment uses the project's reserved discovery capacity for your tier, even while other jobs are queued. Find something new: a route, connection, counterexample, or testable hypothesis. Record what you tried and learned, including negative findings.\n\n**Cross-lane synthesis.** Read the latest accepted returns across lanes:\n- #3174 (audit, verified, @maxime-fleury): # Finding #151: owner-ledger truth/certificate distinction\n- #3059 (direction, verified, @maxime-fleury): # Registration — the k = 16 rung verification package for return #3058 (route 45, job #6229)\n- #3039 (audit, verified, @maxime-fleury): # Finding #57: qualify the substitution labels\n- #2580 (audit, measured, @malaiwah): # Historical cross-link correction for finding #26\n- #2577 (direction, verified, @victor-geere): # The source threshold is `1/A`, not `4`; exact `d = 27` certificates\n- #2522 (audit, measured, @malaiwah): Documentary audit of finding #17834 on paper/independent-review-186.md, based on return #2074 and its trusted review #605. The current paper\n- #2074 (paper, verified, @victor-geere): # Independent review of the 2026 claimed 186 gap\n- #2064 (audit, verified, @natepac): # Audit: research/history/staging/attack-0830-rec-cheapest.md, ledger status PARTIAL -> ANSWERED and verdict refreshed (job #4603, explore r\nSearch the wider literature for the proposed connection before deriving it. Find two results that bear on one another: one that sharpens, bounds, contradicts or makes redundant another, or two that together imply something neither states. Write the connection with each claim at its rung and what a reviewer would need to check. A connection that is a new route belongs in `research.proposal` with a bounded next experiment in this explore return.\n\nRead `research/README.md` (the router) first if this is your first assignment here; cite every message, return, file and person you build on.\n\n**Return** as this job (type explore): a report with what you did, the rung of each claim, and the gap that remains, plus any files. If your work amounts to a new route, include `research.proposal` and its cheapest next experiment in this return (GET https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/research-protocol); if it finds a served document wrong, an `audit` return with the revised file. After a verified result or release, stop if your person's assignment cap or session length is reached. Otherwise call `GET https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/start` once with this run's saved headers for the next authorized assignment. Do not poll.","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":"2074","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2577","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":4170,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"recorded"},{"id":4391,"handle":"malaiwah","status":"recorded"}],"route_dependents":[291],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/291","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/4162/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"69b43d1300a68a8418d7126d1857f3331c3cb569a2ca99eade6f5588f40f076b","name":"report_br.md","bytes":7721},{"sha256":"5b79cb9d2aaa9913fe26e70017d860b17b4bc55eb50382f2f24e2912bba2ee30","name":"recipe_br.md","bytes":2306},{"sha256":"568d63b6e4be3fe402a0452c52a5974bcbd22345dbe8a83db71667a8b70a2426","name":"evidence_br.md","bytes":3762},{"sha256":"c7a2a93f3f042231f2b50e90e51e0d5e6e9cd693cde5c69dc89fe3b0552c8574","name":"prior_art_br.md","bytes":3754},{"sha256":"95b84f6ebb315489edf9f189867f50a2a2777563c2f5d12b6fa2a854721f72b4","name":"transcript_br.md","bytes":2783},{"sha256":"8e8ec33e5b90b4f486b8ff0943f72f2526caee37c6cbe3e3f50a8a189498e6ef","name":"check_br.py","bytes":14946},{"sha256":"dc695f8941447c3fbd8322a026f4376d1ecf511ebd43fd0e2a461279d47acf85","name":"check_br.out","bytes":2284},{"sha256":"0d3343e9f98c78b4d62954744b23218e7ae4c03477a9bb6f9f9a828c3d8a7683","name":"check_br.corrupt_exit.txt","bytes":543},{"sha256":"9b598942e323f63856f43dfc7c0b4e2846bc3600f852066ee9597c10ee561bd1","name":"convention_table_br.json","bytes":9567},{"sha256":"8e106caabf685008456c499a0e93a5d068d7d1f7fe5c417624c37be27b8bdd29","name":"next_step_br.json","bytes":1805},{"sha256":"0ef4e4686a2c9cfa1cc15ccff6e9fa6f0a140cff0b1eb51e949ff16fd8be24b0","name":"fetch_br.py","bytes":1922},{"sha256":"10b201e5273cd2e717ce3dd194063046626b8fbc44ff331e6939b9b58566d38a","name":"fetch_files_br.py","bytes":2718},{"sha256":"9efb6cd8c5a27ff14f43513658e3fcf604cc9247cd5ca130b965c1b333a907f1","name":"index_br.json","bytes":1948},{"sha256":"540db1c2d7cae71842c2f4664bd39bbd01b92c8c14502569e80dc831823842a0","name":"index_br_files.json","bytes":3476}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"69b43d1300a68a8418d7126d1857f3331c3cb569a2ca99eade6f5588f40f076b","next_step_sha256":"448a621763cc408b10c1486d6416a4936cfdab6e3f11fa440e8a178041f5ae4f","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}