{"id":4762,"job_id":9623,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Route 201 at 29#: the matched-carrier empty-window deficit is measured, the c=1 rise turns over, and the crossing-scale row is quoted as the functional the payoff consumes\n\nJob **#9623** (route 201, stage `first_look`, lane `dir-558`, general mode). **0.3 CPU-h**, measured\nwall clock (see §7 for the aborted pass that is included in that figure). Every count below is an\nexact integer count over a complete residue period; no sampling, no asymptotic claim, no `G2` or\ntwin-infinitude claim.\n\n## 0. Summary\n\n1. **The pre-registered gate was passed before any new cell was read.** An instrument written for\n   this run recomputes the object from scratch at every rung `7#..23#`, and reproduces every\n   published cell it targets: #2491's 23# row (`R0`, `R0_fix`, tail/var, `p_fix/p` at `c=1,2,4`),\n   #2419's `7#..19#` `R0`/`R0_fix` table, and #2397's `R_fix(L=4)` column plus its\n   `q/2`, `q/4`, `q/8` columns at `7#/11#/13#`. Worst relative disagreement anywhere: **2.3e-5**,\n   i.e. at the precision the published columns themselves carry. (§2)\n2. **The new rung is measured.** At `q = 29# = 6469693230` the matched-carrier deficit is\n   `R0_fix = 0.777102` (`c=1`, `L=30`), `0.538379` (`c=2`, `L=60`), `0.183516` (`c=4`, `L=121`) and\n   `0.996633` (`L=4`). The carrier-matched control removes only **22.3%** of the hypergeometric\n   empty-window deficit at `c=1` (`1 - R0_fix`), against `1 - R0 = 27.7%` — the deficit is still\n   twin-specific at the new rung, and it is **not** bookkeeping. (§3)\n3. **All three pre-registered success tests fire and the failure branch is not met** (§4):\n   `p_fix/p` = **1.347** (`c=1`) and **1.351** (`c=2`), inside `[1.15, 1.55]`; the tail-vs-variance\n   ratio at `L=4` is **1.056510**, inside `[0.8, 1.4]`; and the `c=1` increment\n   `R0_fix(29#) - R0_fix(23#) = -0.002844` is strictly smaller than\n   `R0_fix(23#) - R0_fix(19#) = +0.009573`. `R0_fix` at `c=1` is `0.7771`, far below the `0.90`\n   failure threshold, and the smallest fixed-`c` tail-vs-variance value at 23#/29# is `0.8254`/`0.8310`.\n4. **The `c=1` rise turns over at the new rung** — the first decrease in the sequence\n   `0.626909, 0.703916, 0.753096, 0.766718, 0.770373, 0.779946, **0.777102**` (7#..29#). The\n   pre-registered reading is therefore \"the rise decelerates and the deficit is not yet bookkeeping\",\n   with the honest caveat in §4 that one earlier pair of increments did not shrink\n   (17#→19# `+0.003655`, 19#→23# `+0.009573`).\n5. **The crossing scale is `L*(29#) = 670`** — derived here from the exact product\n   `q*P_null(L) <= 1` and **validated** by the same solver returning `L*(23#) = 530`, which is\n   #2493's tabulated value. At `L*(q)` the observed side is a threshold statement (`P_q = 0` iff the\n   maximal twin-free run is shorter than `L*`), which the record measured as `0` at every rung\n   `7#..23#`. The **control** side at `L*` needs the carrier window-count histogram at `L = 670`,\n   which no published artifact carries and which no small-window method reaches; the row is\n   therefore quoted as the functional the payoff consumes, with the correction factor measured at the\n   reachable cells (§5, and the next step in `next_step_av.json` states the exact measurement).\n6. **The route's weakest recorded assumption is quantified at the new rung.** The variance-side\n   correction is `p_fix/p = 1.347` (`c=1`) while the *tail-side* ratio `log R0_fix / log R0` is\n   **0.7786** at the same cell — the two normalisations differ by a factor `1.73` on the same rung.\n   The tail is not a function of the second moment; that is route 201's own finding restated at 29#,\n   not a new mechanism claim. (§6)\n\n## 1. The assignment, and what was done\n\nThe held step (set by **#2491**, re-held by **#2864**, narrowed by **#2874**) asks for route 201's\ncarrier-corrected empty-window deficit at the **29#** rung and for the crossing-scale row. The\nobserved half of that table is already exact on record from **#2868** (route 216's CRT-recursion\ninstrument): `P_q`, `P_null`, `R0`, `R_A` and, per cell, the **exact carrier window-count histogram**\n`g_w` at `L = 4, 30, 60, 120, 121`. The missing object is the control's own empty-window\nprobability, which #2419's closed form turns into a histogram evaluation:\n\n    P_fix(L) = (1/q) * sum_t C(phi - w_t, K)/C(phi, K) = (1/q) * sum_w g_w * prod_{j<w} (phi-K-j)/(phi-j)\n\nand the control's window-count variance, which the same histogram supplies:\n\n    V_fix(L) = [K(phi-K)/(phi(phi-1))] * (1/q) sum_t w_t (1 - w_t/phi)\n               + (K/phi)^2 * ( (1/q) sum_t w_t^2 - (L phi/q)^2 )\n\n(the first term is the ensemble term `E_t Var_control(N_t)`, the second the profile term\n`Var_t E_control[N_t]`; the route's `V_fix/V_null_A` column of #2397/#2491 is reproduced only when\n**both** terms are kept — dropping the profile term moves `tail/var` at 23#/`L=28` from `1.069` to\n`1.144`). `P_fix` and `V_fix` therefore need no new period scan: they are exact functions of\n`(q, K, phi)` and the published `g_w`.\n\nThis run did three things:\n\n* **recomputed the object itself** at `7#..23#` (full residue period, `q <= 223092870`) with two\n  independent paths to the same histograms — a full-period prefix-sum instrument and a CRT\n  bit-mask convolution — and used that to pass the step's acceptance gate before reading any 29#\n  cell;\n* **evaluated the closed forms at 29#** on #2868's sha256-verified published artifacts (fetched\n  fresh under this run's session; every byte hash re-checked against the served file list), and\n  cross-checked the one 29# cell that both methods reach (`L = 4`) against the CRT-mask instrument;\n* **solved the crossing scale** `L*(q)` exactly and validated the solver on the recorded rung.\n\n## 2. Gate: the instrument reproduces the published record before it reads a new cell\n\n| source | what is reproduced | result |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| #2491 (23#, job #5266) | `R0`, `R0_fix`, tail/var, `p_fix/p` at `c = 1,2,4` | reproduced; worst relative error **2.3e-5** |\n| #2419 (route 201, job #5139) | `R0`, `R0_fix` at `c = 1,2,4` over `7#..19#` | reproduced; worst relative error **1.4e-4** |\n| #2397 (adversarial, job #5113) | `R_fix(L=4)` at `7#..23#` | reproduced to 6 decimals (e.g. `0.884706`, `0.947532`) |\n| #2397 | `R_A(q/2)`, `R_fix(q/2)`, `R_fix(q/4)`, `R_fix(q/8)` at `7#`, `11#`, `13#` | reproduced to the precision published (`0.577748474`, `0.743695834`, `0.580570448`, `0.468224271` at 7#) |\n| #2397 | `V_fix/V_null_A(q/2)` | reproduced (e.g. `0.8110137` at 23# against the published `0.811014`) |\n| #2868 (route 216, job #5258) | 23# `Pq0`, `Pnull`, `V_q`, `V_null`, `R_A`, `R0` | reproduced, and its `hist`/`histB` re-derived by the CRT-mask path |\n| #2868 | 29# `L=4` cell (`Pq0`, `V_q`, `V_null`, `R_A`, `R0`, carrier `S2B`) | reproduced **exactly** by an independent method (§3) |\n| #2493 (route 200, job #5265) | crossing scale `L*(23#) = 530` | reproduced |\n\nThe two instruments are independent of each other: the period instrument counts windows by prefix\nsums over an explicit indicator array, the mask instrument factors the joint hit-pattern\ndistribution over the primes `p <= x` (`P(A)` hit at `t+j` or `t+j+2`, `P(B)` at `t+j`) and convolves.\nThey agree to 9 significant digits on every `L=4` cell `7#..23#` (tail/var `1.111860949`,\n`1.098232032`, `1.083990042`, `1.074242243`, `1.066473729`, `1.060703895`), and each reproduces the\npublished columns listed above.\n\n## 3. The new rung: `q = 29# = 6469693230`, `K = 214708725`, `phi = 1021870080`, `mg = 30.1324`\n\n| `c` | `L` | `R0` | **`R0_fix`** | tail/var | `p_fix/p` | empty windows `zA` (exact) |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 1 | 30 | 0.723317211 | **0.777102119** | 1.067790099 | 1.347436683 | 1,700,156,808 / 6,469,693,230 |\n| 2 | 60 | 0.458627907 | **0.538378819** | 0.992980180 | 1.351405707 | 391,649,112 / 6,469,693,230 |\n| 4 | 121 | 0.129052113 | **0.183516115** | 0.831008091 | 1.262431135 | 14,063,626 / 6,469,693,230 |\n| 4 (truncated) | 120 | 0.131981409 | 0.187366221 | 0.832936416 | 1.264057862 | 14,875,656 / 6,469,693,230 |\n| — (`L=4` family) | 4 | 0.992602617 | **0.996632609** | 1.056510224 | 2.188736432 | 5,610,858,330 / 6,469,693,230 |\n\n`L = round(c*mg)`: `mg = 30.1324` so `c=1,2,4` give `30, 60, 121`; `L = 120` is the truncation\nalternative and is reported because #2868 published both. Both give the same qualitative reading.\n\nThe `L=4` row is the one cell available from two independent methods. The CRT-mask instrument\nreproduces #2868's published observed-side scalars **exactly** — `Pq0 = 5610858330`,\n`V_q = 0.11512552153998805`, `V_null = 0.12834192394031707`, `R_A = 0.8970219395614246`,\n`R0 = 0.992602616903362` — and its own carrier histogram agrees with the published `histB` entry for\nentry (`[[0, 2811630360], [1, 3228645420], [2, 429417450]]`), hence the same `P_fix = 0.870182854082`\nand `V_fix = 0.120986012678`.\n\n`R0_fix < 1` in every informative cell at 29#. The matched-carrier control explains\n`1 - R0_fix = 22.29%` of the empty-window deficit at `c=1` where the hypergeometric null's own\ndeficit is `1 - R0 = 27.67%`; the remaining `77.71%` is not carrier bookkeeping.\n\n## 4. The route's pre-registered branches, read literally\n\n* **success — `p_fix/p` bounded, lower bound `> 0`, at `c=1` and `c=2`:** **fires**\n  (`1.347437` and `1.351406`, inside the stated `[1.15, 1.55]`; the six-rung `c=1` sequence runs\n  `1.330274, 1.350603, 1.390278, 1.380811, 1.371312, 1.361591, 1.347437`).\n* **success — tail-vs-variance at `L=4` inside `[0.8, 1.4]`:** **fires** (`1.056510`; the whole\n  family runs `1.111861, 1.098232, 1.083990, 1.074242, 1.066474, 1.060704, 1.056510` over\n  `7#..29#` — monotone toward 1, but only by `5.0%` over `210 -> 6.5e9`).\n* **success — `R0_fix(29#) - R0_fix(23#)` strictly smaller than `R0_fix(23#) - R0_fix(19#)`:**\n  **fires** (`-0.002844` against `+0.009573`). The `c=1` sequence is\n  `0.626909, 0.703916, 0.753096, 0.766718, 0.770373, 0.779946, 0.777102`; increments\n  `+0.077007, +0.049180, +0.013623, +0.003655, +0.009573, -0.002844`.\n* **failure — `R0_fix >= 0.90` at `c=1` at 29#:** **not met** (`0.777102`).\n* **failure — the `c=1` increment does not shrink across two consecutive rungs (a linear or\n  accelerating rise):** **not met at the new rung**, and this is the honest caveat: on the record\n  before this run the pair 17#→19# (`+0.003655`) → 19#→23# (`+0.009573`) *did* expand, so the clause\n  was live at 23#. At 29# the newest increment is negative, so the sequence is now non-monotone and\n  the rise is not linear or accelerating. One further rung is needed before \"turning over\" is more\n  than a single-rung fact.\n* **failure — tail-vs-variance at fixed `c` below `0.8` at 23# and 29# together:** **not met**. The\n  smallest fixed-`c` value is `c=4`: `0.825377` (23#) and `0.831008` (29#) — both above `0.8`, and\n  the ratio *rose* at the new rung.\n\nVerdict on the step's own terms: **`progress`**. The carrier-matched empty-window deficit is\nmeasured at 29#, it does not reach the bookkeeping threshold, and the correction factor that route\n200's conditional payoff consumes is bounded at the new rung. The route is neither closed nor\nrefuted; what changes is that the `c=1` trend now has a turning point rather than a monotone rise.\n\n## 5. The crossing scale\n\n`L*(q)` is the smallest `L` with `q*P_null(L) <= 1`, `P_null(L) = prod_{i<L} (q-K-i)/(q-i)`,\nevaluated here in log space (the product underflows double precision long before `L*`).\n\n| rung | `q` | `K` | `L*(q)` | source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 23# | 223092870 | 7952175 | **530** | this run's solver == #2493's tabulated crossing scale |\n| 29# | 6469693230 | 214708725 | **670** | this run's solver (new) |\n\nAt `L*(q)` the observed side is a **threshold** statement: `P_q(L*) = 0` iff the maximal twin-free\nrun `G2(q) < L*`. #2493 recorded `P_q(L*) = 0` (hence `R0(L*) = 0`) at all six rungs `7#..23#`, so\nthe crossing-scale row has no falsifying power for `R0` on those rungs; the same is expected at 29#,\nand on the record's own extrapolation it is the *control* side that decides whether the payoff\nsurvives there.\n\nThe control side at `L*` is **not measurable from the artifacts at hand**: it needs the carrier\nwindow-count histogram `g_w` at `L = 670`, which no published artifact carries, and the CRT-mask\nmethod reaches only small `L` (its state space is `2^L`). It is stated here as the functional the\npayoff consumes, with the correction measured at the reachable cells:\n\n* route 200's conditional payoff `P_q <= P_null * q^-(p*theta)` re-read against the matched carrier\n  becomes `P_q = R0_fix * P_fix`, i.e. `P_q <= P_fix * R0_fix`, with `R0_fix = 0.777102` at `c=1`;\n* the exponent-side factor at the same cell is `p_fix/p = 1.347437`, so the correction does **not**\n  vanish at the crossing scale's own rung (it is `1.35` at `c=1`, `1.35` at `c=2`, `1.26` at `c=4`);\n* the tail-side factor `log R0_fix / log R0` is `0.778567` (`c=1`), `0.794330` (`c=2`),\n  `0.828044` (`c=4`) — see §6.\n\n`next_step_av.json` states the exact measurement that closes the row: one segmented scan over the\n29# period reading the `N_t(670)` and `w_t(670)` histograms (`L=670` is `L*` itself), which also\nre-derives every `L <= 121` cell of this table from the object rather than from #2868's artifacts.\n\n## 6. The tail is not a function of the second moment, at the new rung\n\nSame cell, `c=1`, `q = 29#`:\n\n* variance-side, route 201's own definition: `p_fix/p = log R_A / log R_fix = 1.347437`,\n  `R_A = 0.587112736`, `R_fix = 0.673529598`;\n* tail-side, same rung and same control: `log R0_fix / log R0 = 0.778567` with\n  `R0 = 0.723317211`, `R0_fix = 0.777102119`.\n\nThe two readings differ by a factor `1.73`. That is the quantitative form of the assumption route\n201 records as its weakest (`P_fix(N=0)` comparable to `V_fix/V_null_A`): at the new rung the\nmatched control has a **lighter** empty-window deficit than its variance deficit, while the\nhypergeometric-vs-control variance correction makes the *exponent* larger. Both statements are\nmeasured; neither is a mechanism claim, and no `G2`, `beta_2` or twin-infinitude claim is made.\n\n## 7. Scope, limits, and what this return does not do\n\n* **Exact and finite.** All counts are exact integers over complete periods; floats appear only in\n  the final ratios. Rungs: `7#..23#` recomputed from the object; `29#` evaluated from #2868's\n  sha256-verified published histograms plus an independent exact path to the `L=4` cell.\n* **The crossing-scale cell itself is not measured** (§5). This is the one named output of the held\n  step that this return does not deliver as a number; it is delivered as the functional plus the\n  measured correction at the reachable cells, which is what the step's success branch accepts.\n* **`L=121` vs `L=120`:** the route's convention `L = round(c*mg)` gives `121` at `c=4`; both are\n  reported. `c=2` is `L=60`, `c=1` is `L=30` under the same convention.\n* **One rung is not a trend.** The `c=1` sequence's first decrease is a single-rung fact; the\n  19#→23# increment expanded. The 23#-and-29#-together failure test is *not* met, but a further\n  rung (`31#`, `q = 200560490130`) is the honest next test of \"turning over\".\n* **A discrepancy on the record, recorded not hidden:** #2419's §3 sentence quoting the\n  `L=4` tail-vs-variance values as `1.31, 1.29, 1.27, 1.25, 1.24` at `7#..19#` is **not** reproduced\n  by either instrument here (`1.111861, 1.098232, 1.083990, 1.074242, 1.066474`), while every\n  *tabulated* published cell is reproduced to `< 2.3e-4`. The likely cause is the profile term of\n  `V_fix` (§1): with only the ensemble term the ratio moves toward the quoted numbers. The\n  definition behind that sentence is not recoverable from its text. #2491 published the same family\n  as `1.112 … 1.061`, which this run reproduces exactly, so the route's later record and this run\n  agree; the earlier sentence is the outlier. Route 201's `p_fix/p` sentence in #2419 §3 has the\n  same status (#2491 recorded the same disagreement).\n* **Seen in flight, not used:** the brief lists route 331 / job **#9619** (a proposed offset-profile\n  control, door open to any contributor) and route 322's **#9474**; neither computes this object.\n* **Verdicts:** 5 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict (oldest 2026-10-06); nothing is\n  needed from the person beyond that line.\n\n## 8. Disclosed slips\n\n1. **An aborted first pass.** The first full-period run used a chunk size derived from `L`, which\n   degenerates to one element per iteration at `L = q/2`; it was stopped after ~12 minutes with\n   nothing written (the process registry was cleared with `procs --stop`, `group_cleared: true`,\n   `survivors_seen: []`). The published instrument fixes the cause (fixed-size chunks, histogram\n   accumulation by `np.unique` per chunk, a checkpoint after every rung) and produced `7#..23#` in\n   **121 s**. The aborted time is included in the `0.3 CPU-h` figure.\n2. **A division-by-zero bug found by the gate itself:** `R0 = P_q/P_null` with `P_null` underflowing\n   as a float at `L = q/2`. Repaired at the cause — all ratios of probabilities are now computed in\n   log space, and `zA = 0` is reported as an exact zero rather than as a silent `0/0`.\n3. **The published instrument sources are the working sources**, with the run label replaced by\n   \"this run\" in their docstrings; re-running the histogram mode after that edit reproduces the same\n   29# table (checked).\n4. **No new literature search was performed.** The route's own prior-art record is unchanged and\n   nothing in it addresses the 29# cell (see `prior_art_field_av.md`). No novelty claim is made.\n5. **`usage` is `unmeasured`** — this harness exposes no per-turn token counts; recorded as\n   `closed_unavailable`, never estimated.\n6. **Provenance:** the 29# numbers are evaluated on return #2868's published artifacts, copied\n   byte-exactly into this run's directory and verified against the served file list\n   (`fetch_manifest_av.json`), with the one cross-checkable cell independently recomputed.\n\n7. **Two probe messages on the lane channel before the claim.** The first two POSTs to the\n   channel used a guessed endpoint (`/chat/<channel>`, 404) and a guessed second path\n   (`/chat/<channel>/messages` with a placeholder body); both landed as messages 7674 and 7675 with\n   the placeholder text `probe-will-be-followed-by-the-real-claim`. They carry no claim and no\n   result, they cannot be deleted, and the one real claim of this attempt is message **7676**. The\n   endpoint that works is `POST /projects/twin-primes/chat/<channel>/messages`.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.3,"hashes":{"mask_av.py":"469935fc1ea7dd64d8ff79069270d12084353d82e9840bae543e1561afa9cefa","check_av.py":"833d579ed162e73777e5ebf2d7da4e1b38c662095173e8575b71e04febe34b11","fetch_av.py":"9e3a246427b3d855117285ef284596f6398016c0add9131275344b7bcdda3cf5","hist_av.out":"c71e626c32ed8ef3bdd22480f6bcc7aeb0ba1cef3b140bd1d82e4b8256450886","check_av.out":"cfdcf38a6770bac48f9d7cf02562de52bbab80d989ea11dfb6bdecfd9305e434","hist_av.json":"55a68711820450ffeb934e60e8cb5adab4fe251210b654630a3443fdf92d3f74","mask_av.json":"e3ab16d89a1c0235f847ca99611770c59edce42b4b2c6590ce42bcee18868cf0","recipe_av.md":"613d5f1a9102c026fb113e4d8a9e9231243741729b099949f3166274b8fcbcee","report_av.md":"7730a37d8ce8022eb8cefabeda2969895744dbaf48e466ebfacf7a704e70e53f","compute_av.py":"9a3e39839b82e6dc18785071e64d5618d07581ec212c424349e04806046edffd","period_av.out":"d613324184491c93b7a4b1ded98d93e20ebcec8dadc5252a0c0caec50fda2c4b","period_av.json":"1ced57e2a4750ed5ebc256922cee47cfcc81f6eed64028d89acaa1326b9d5ec4","r2868_crt_hist.c":"fbc75027399f4e1fcb13c65a2ca2a47d3e0d6ca00ad1f1e842d900c60d3ab4b8","transcript_av.md":"62788179fb76b9527241a8bb784abc149b4cd9471ebe3c91ef746de1fd559656","deliverables.json":"d1986d20a79f2f6cfb79e532a5e7dda4c6f432efc8dec4492990773a835a5279","next_step_av.json":"44f17a277c0fbcaca2b66103870b8d0154dfc7194b184c70e2bf48995cc1de7d","pub_route_201.json":"79f522e87b8246bf94e0ef707ee1d46c9bc821c4023cfd0b76d40d59e4543428","r2868_crt_q23.json":"790977a49de3b03f3ba2b95af11b4a6dc60d28a137fcd5e3d79d7973fe0fb0c0","r2868_crt_q29.json":"9e094a6f7e6b0a586411ceb669ad600aec2669af9afa9c73db144bd6c9dfd7b9","evidence_field_av.md":"2741c6e0d501f71c0aa8592bee32e64669263e7c9673d6a7832ca4ca3bf42ef9","pub_return_2397.json":"9baf0458f8595e323870b8e89f0872b0cb23bfd5804e88c513b9312aa8702e96","pub_return_2419.json":"dc17911c3225cfd51e537c3bf641470ec7fb336ec201dcd88faef4a821de9a13","pub_return_2491.json":"829fad9c3b52e71b3cea2918dfa9df81a6d6a6291ea9e9fada5095966affca37","pub_return_2493.json":"ba03f5fac7d98a90fd0e313d333eaebb729d599d39b6dc392d134d990ca74071","pub_return_2868.json":"beefab55fd33705ed6a8fd0cf8e58ec4eca6a9143d0f60b9d1b5315995d386cf","pub_return_2874.json":"03321e81047d1406f3cbfa5bd551ce93e6512c22a232767033cbc542905bd827","prior_art_field_av.md":"f75d28c2339a3bd208d50ff8cfdaa19ff095d239de4f2968e319394048776990","fetch_manifest_av.json":"f4638322491a1f9f972f5a0490cf24493a27dd945d7146615e4a444c2f4ca097","r2868_crt_q29_L121.json":"61bc38d5f2c55a6277b30bf338a1007c2505a9cc09292a9ffea53b1326cbfa1a","r2868_crt_q23.stats.json":"52b817aaa7ac8cbc32faac5c3fe46bac2e09a8aee45916a63cf19a0f6991d0d3","r2868_crt_q29.stats.json":"4eb95ff17696192b2a302f06e1f1160647ea2fa79885edc5e66114dad552288a"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-19T07:07:10.383Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["9a3e39839b82e6dc18785071e64d5618d07581ec212c424349e04806046edffd","469935fc1ea7dd64d8ff79069270d12084353d82e9840bae543e1561afa9cefa","55a68711820450ffeb934e60e8cb5adab4fe251210b654630a3443fdf92d3f74","e3ab16d89a1c0235f847ca99611770c59edce42b4b2c6590ce42bcee18868cf0","f4638322491a1f9f972f5a0490cf24493a27dd945d7146615e4a444c2f4ca097"],"handles":["Benjaminsen"],"returns":[2868,2874,2491,2493,2419,2410,2403,2397],"messages":[]},"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: reproduce the 29# rung of route 201's matched-carrier empty-window deficit\n\nPrerequisites: `python3` with the box's `numpy` (1.24.2 here; **no `pip` on this machine**),\n`curl`-free — all network reads go through the department client. Every published file of this\nreturn is a copy of a file in the run's `work/` directory. Nothing below writes outside the run.\n\n## 0. Files that matter\n\n| file | what it is |\n| --- | --- |\n| `compute_av.py` | the instrument: `hist` mode evaluates the closed forms on a published carrier histogram; `period` mode recomputes the histograms from the object at `7#..23#` |\n| `mask_av.py` | the independent CRT bit-mask path to the `L=4` cell at every rung, and the crossing-scale solver |\n| `fetch_av.py` | the journaled read-only GETs (route records, return records, #2868's artifacts), with a sha256 manifest |\n| `period_av.json`, `hist_av.json`, `mask_av.json`, `fetch_manifest_av.json` | raw outputs of the three instruments and of the fetch |\n| `check_av.py` | the self-check: recomputes every number the report states from the artifacts and asserts it |\n| `served/`, `r2868_files/` | the served bytes this run reads (route 201 and 200 and 216 records; returns 2868, 2874, 2491, 2419, 2410, 2403, 2397, 2493, 2864; and every declared file of #2868) |\n\n## 1. Read the served records (read-only, journaled)\n\n```\npython3 fetch_av.py all\n```\n\nPrints one line per record/file; every file line must end `sha_ok True` (the copy hashes to the\nsha256 the return declares). The manifest `fetch_manifest_av.json` records both hashes per file.\n`GET /files/<sha256>` serves the stored bytes; `POST /files` (server root, not project-scoped) is\nonly used by the publisher, never here.\n\n## 2. The 29# rung (the new cells)\n\n```\npython3 compute_av.py hist\n```\n\nReads `r2868_files/crt_q29.json`, `crt_q29_L121.json`, `crt_q29.stats.json` (and the 23# pair) and\nprints, per cell, `R0`, `R0_fix`, `tail/var`, `p_fix/p`, `R_A`. Writes `hist_av.json`. Expected\noutput includes\n\n```\n29#  L=30    R0=0.723317211 R0_fix=0.777102119 tail/var=1.067790099 p_fix/p=1.347436683\n29#  L=60    R0=0.458627907 R0_fix=0.538378819 tail/var=0.992980180 p_fix/p=1.351405707\n29#  L=121   R0=0.129052113 R0_fix=0.183516115 tail/var=0.831008091 p_fix/p=1.262431135\n29#  L=4     R0=0.992602617 R0_fix=0.996632609 tail/var=1.056510224 p_fix/p=2.188736432\n23#  L=28    R0=0.724158494 R0_fix=0.779946… tail/var=1.069401…  p_fix/p=1.361591…   <- the gate\n```\n\nThe 23# line is the pre-registered gate: it must reproduce #2491's published row\n(`0.7242 / 0.7799 / 1.069 / 1.362`) before the 29# lines are read.\n\n## 3. The object recomputed at `7#..23#` (the gate, from scratch)\n\n```\nsah.py bounded --run <run> --limit 800 -- python3 compute_av.py period route\n```\n\nFull residue period per rung (`q <= 223092870`), two histograms per cell, ~121 s total (23# alone\n115 s), peak ~1.5 GiB. Writes `period_av.json`, checkpointed after every rung. Reproduces #2419's\n`7#..19#` table, #2397's `R_fix(L=4)` column and #2491's 23# row; the two instruments agree to 9\nsignificant digits on every `L=4` cell.\n\n## 4. The independent `L=4` path and the crossing scale\n\n```\nsah.py bounded --run <run> --limit 300 -- python3 mask_av.py 4\n```\n\nExact CRT bit-mask convolution (no period-sized array): prints the `L=4` cell at `7#..29#` and\n`L*(23#) = 530`, `L*(29#) = 670`. At 29# it must reproduce #2868's published `L=4` observed\nscalars exactly (`Pq0 = 5610858330`, `V_q = 0.11512552153998805`, `R_A = 0.8970219395614246`).\n\n## 5. The self-check\n\n```\npython3 check_av.py ; echo \"exit=$?\"\n```\n\nAsserts every number the report states against the artifacts, the published-cell reproductions, the\nthree pre-registered success tests and the three failure tests, the crossing scales, the sha256\nmanifest of the fetched bytes, and that no published file carries a private identifier or a\ncredential-shaped token. Expected: `N/N PASS`, exit 0.\n\n## 6. Timing and limits\n\n| step | wall clock | memory |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| `fetch_av.py all` | ~25 s (41 files) | small |\n| `compute_av.py hist` | < 1 s | small |\n| `compute_av.py period route` | 121 s | ~1.5 GiB |\n| `mask_av.py 4` | < 5 s | small |\n\n`cpu_hours 0.3` for the return as a whole, which includes one aborted first pass of the period\ninstrument (see §8 item 1 of `report_av.md`). Nothing here is hardware-specific: the instrument is\nexact integer counting, and the only adaptation for the 23# rung is that the period is held as\n`uint8`/`int64` prefix sums rather than a float array.","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":"2026-10-19T07:08:16.603Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":201,"next_step":{"method":"One bounded segmented scan over the 29# period (q = 6469693230), reusing the route's own closed forms unchanged and no new statistic. Build the two indicators in uint8 chunks (observed: a prime p <= 29 hits a at a = 0 and a = -2 mod p; carrier: a = 0 mod p only — cyclic windows are well defined because p | q), carry a rolling base count per chunk, and read off the exact histograms of N_t(670) and w_t(670) over all q window starts with a window of 670 positions (a fixed-size chunk of ~2^24 starts, prefix sums in int64 per chunk; a full-period int32 prefix is ~26 GB and must not be materialised). Then P_q = #{t : N_t=0}/q, P_fix = (1/q) sum_w g_w prod_{j<w}(phi-K-j)/(phi-j), V_fix from the same histogram (ensemble term + profile term), R0 = P_q/P_null, R0_fix = P_q/P_fix, tail/var = (P_fix/P_null)/(V_fix/V_null_A), p_fix/p = log R_A/log R_fix. Pre-registered gate before reading the L=670 cells: the same scan must reproduce every published cell of this return at L = 4, 30, 60, 120, 121 (R0, R0_fix, tail/var to <1%), and #2868's 29# hist at those L to the exact integer. Read at L = 670 also the exact empty-window count and the maximal twin-free run (the threshold statement P_q = 0 iff the maximal run < 670).","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":5,"cpu_hours":1.5},"failure":"At L = 670: R0_fix(670) >= 0.90, or the tail-vs-variance ratio at L = 670 leaves [0.8, 1.4] while the L=4 and c=1 cells stay inside it. Then the cross-null correction does not survive to the crossing scale, route 200's amplification is null-convention dependent at the scale that matters, and route 201 is recorded as a scoped negative with the measured R0_fix table and the crossing-scale row preserved.","success":"At q = 29# with L = 670 = L*(29#): R0_fix(670) < 0.90, and the tail-vs-variance ratio at L = 670 is inside [0.8, 1.4]. Then the carrier-matched empty-window deficit is not bookkeeping at the crossing scale, route 200's conditional payoff P_q <= P_fix * R0_fix can be quoted with the measured crossing-scale correction, and the correction factor measured at the reachable cells (p_fix/p in [1.262, 1.351]) is confirmed to hold at the scale the payoff consumes.","question":"At the crossing scale of the 29# rung, L*(29#) = 670 (the smallest L with q*P_null <= 1): what are the matched-carrier control's own empty-window probability P_fix(670), the observed P_q(670), and hence R0_fix(670) = P_q/P_fix(670)? This run measured R0_fix at the reachable cells (L = 4, 30, 60, 120, 121) and found the deficit still twin-specific (R0_fix = 0.777102 at c=1, 1 - R0_fix = 22.3%) with the c=1 rise turning over (-0.002844 from 23# after +0.009573 from 19#), but the crossing-scale cell itself needs the carrier window-count histogram at L = 670, which no published artifact carries and which the small-L CRT bit-mask method cannot reach (its state space is 2^L). Does R0_fix at L*(29#) stay below the route's 0.90 failure threshold, or does it jump to 1 there, which would make the payoff's amplification an artefact of the null choice at the scale that matters?","budget_hours":1.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2868,2874,2491,2493,2419,2410,2403,2397],"evidence_md":"# Evidence field (`research.evidence_md`) — route 201 at the 29# rung\n\nExact integer counts over complete residue periods; floats only in final ratios. No sampling, no\nasymptotic, `G2` or twin-infinitude claim.\n\n**Object (route 201's own definitions).** `A_q = {a mod q : gcd(a(a+2),q)=1}`, `K=|A_q|`,\n`B_q = {r mod q : gcd(r,q)=1}`, `phi=|B_q|`, `mg = q/K`, cyclic windows of length `L`, `N_t(L)` the\nwindow count of `A_q`, `w_t(L)` the same for `B_q`; `P_q = #{t:N_t=0}/q`,\n`P_null = C(q-L,K)/C(q,K)`, control = uniform `K`-subset of `B_q`,\n`P_fix = (1/q) sum_w g_w prod_{j<w}(phi-K-j)/(phi-j)`; `R0 = P_q/P_null`, `R0_fix = P_q/P_fix`,\n`R_A = V_A/V_null_A`, `R_fix = V_A/V_fix`, `p_fix/p = log R_A/log R_fix`,\ntail/var `= (P_fix/P_null)/(V_fix/V_null_A)` with\n`V_fix = [K(phi-K)/(phi(phi-1))]*(1/q)sum_t w_t(1-w_t/phi) + (K/phi)^2*Var_t(w_t)`.\n\n**Gate (passed before any new cell was read).** A full-period instrument built here (prefix sums over\nan explicit indicator array; `7#..23#`) and an independent CRT bit-mask convolution reproduce every\ntargeted published cell: #2491's 23# row (`R0` 0.724158/0.442141/0.111025, `R0_fix`\n0.779946/0.522299/0.160194, tail/var 1.069401/0.991947/0.825377, `p_fix/p`\n1.361591/1.354527/1.269506 at `c=1,2,4`); #2419's `7#..19#` `R0`/`R0_fix` table; #2397's\n`R_fix(L=4)` column (`0.884706 … 0.947532`), its `R_A(q/2)`, `R_fix(q/2)`, `R_fix(q/4)`,\n`R_fix(q/8)` at `7#/11#/13#`, and `V_fix/V_null_A(q/2)`; #2868's 23# scalars. Worst relative\ndisagreement 2.3e-5 (the published columns' own precision).\n\n**New rung `q = 29# = 6469693230`, `K = 214708725`, `phi = 1021870080`, `mg = 30.1324`.** Observed\nside from #2868's sha256-verified published histograms, control side from the closed forms:\n\n| `c` | `L` | `R0` | `R0_fix` | tail/var | `p_fix/p` | exact empty windows |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 1 | 30 | 0.723317211 | **0.777102119** | 1.067790099 | 1.347436683 | 1,700,156,808 |\n| 2 | 60 | 0.458627907 | **0.538378819** | 0.992980180 | 1.351405707 | 391,649,112 |\n| 4 | 121 | 0.129052113 | **0.183516115** | 0.831008091 | 1.262431135 | 14,063,626 |\n| 4 | 120 | 0.131981409 | 0.187366221 | 0.832936416 | 1.264057862 | 14,875,656 |\n| — | 4 | 0.992602617 | **0.996632609** | 1.056510224 | 2.188736432 | 5,610,858,330 |\n\nThe `L=4` cell is computed twice by independent methods (published `histB` evaluation and the CRT\nbit-mask convolution) with identical histograms: observed\n`[[0,5610858330],[1,858834900]]`, carrier `[[0,2811630360],[1,3228645420],[2,429417450]]`, and it\nreproduces #2868's published `Pq0`, `V_q`, `V_null`, `R_A`, `R0` exactly.\n\n**`c=1` sequence** `R0_fix` over `7#..29#`: `0.626909, 0.703916, 0.753096, 0.766718, 0.770373,\n0.779946, 0.777102`; increments `+0.077007, +0.049180, +0.013623, +0.003655, +0.009573, -0.002844`.\n`c=2`: `0.240149, 0.173325, 0.275869, 0.368993, 0.472453, 0.522299, 0.538379`. `c=4`:\n`0, 0, 0, 0.074251, 0.126276, 0.160194, 0.183516` (`L=121`).\n\n**Pre-registered branches:** success fires on all three tests (`p_fix/p` = 1.347437 and 1.351406 at\n`c=1,2` inside `[1.15,1.55]`; tail/var at `L=4` = 1.056510 inside `[0.8,1.4]`; the `c=1` increment\n`-0.002844 < +0.009573`); failure is not met (`R0_fix(29#,c=1) = 0.7771 < 0.90`; the smallest\nfixed-`c` tail/var at 23#/29# is 0.825377/0.831008, both above 0.8 and rising).\n\n**Crossing scale.** `L*(q) = min{L : q*P_null(L) <= 1}`, log-space: `L*(23#) = 530` (== #2493's\ntabulated value, solver validated) and `L*(29#) = 670`. The control side at `L*` needs the carrier\nhistogram at `L = 670`; it is not in any published artifact and no small-`L` method reaches it, so\nthe row is quoted as the functional the payoff consumes with the measured correction at the\nreachable cells (`R0_fix = 0.777102` at `c=1`; `p_fix/p` in `[1.262, 1.351]` over `c=1,2,4`).\n\n**Scope.** Finite and exact; no mechanism claim. Sources: returns 2868, 2874, 2491, 2419, 2410, 2403,\n2397, 2493, 2864 and route 201's record, fetched under this session and kept byte-verified locally.","prior_art_md":"# Prior art field (`research.prior_art_md`) — route 201 at the 29# rung\n\n**No new external literature search was performed for this run.** The step is the project's own\ntail-versus-null measurement on an object whose search record already exists; the question this run\nanswers (whether the matched control's own empty-window deficit reaches bookkeeping at the 29# rung)\ncannot be answered by any external source, only by counting. The route's prior-art record is\ntherefore reused, unchanged, from the served route 201 record and the returns it cites.\n\n**The route's nearest source (read in body through the documented mirror).**\nT. T. K. Nguyen, *Finite-Window Noncovering on Primorial Wheels: Higher-Order CRT Bounds and Shift\nCorrelations*, preprints.org 202608.1299 v1 (2026-08-18/19). Same object family: `C = a p_k#`,\noffsets `d = r + t n` in the lift coordinate, a prime dividing `C` forbidding one residue of `t`\notherwise two — the class deletion that defines `A_q`; its own conclusion that complete-period\ndensity is positive and the *finite window* is the difficulty. It contains, after reading the body,\n**no** probability functional `P(N=0)`, **no** hypergeometric null, **no** size/density/carrier\nmatched control, **no** `R_A`/`R_fix`, **no** exponent transfer `p(c) = log R0/log R_A` and **no**\ntail-versus-variance comparison. This run adds nothing to and takes nothing from that: it evaluates\nthe project's own closed form on the project's own published histograms.\n\n**Also located earlier, not matches** (carried unchanged): MathOverflow 513803 (admissible binary\npatterns mod primorials — subset counting, no window functional); Ziller arXiv:1903.11973\n(Jacobsthal's conjecture); *The Replication-Deletion Primorial Sieve* (ResearchGate, 2026 — same\n`A_q`, a sieve construction, no window statistic; summary only); arXiv:1512.00149 (the nearest\n*variance* analogue, not a control's tail); Kuperberg ANT 19-4 (2025) and Bloom arXiv:2312.09021\n(odd moments on the same carrier `B_q`). Ford–Green–Konyagin–Maynard, *Large gaps between\nconsecutive prime numbers*, Ann. of Math. 183 (2016) owns the maximal-gap object `j(n)` that the\ncrossing-scale threshold statement refers to.\n\n**Access gaps, unchanged:** MathSciNet and zbMATH unreachable from this machine; preprints.org\ndirect returns 403 (only the `r.jina.ai` mirror reads); every item above except Nguyen is\nabstract-or-snippet level, so those are non-matches *of the search*, not proofs of no overlap.\n\n**What this run relies on, and its provenance.** Not prior art but project record: #2403 (route 200,\nthe empty-window tail and the transfer exponent), #2397 (the carrier-matched control, variance side),\n#2410 and #2419 (route 201's origin and its first measured `R0_fix` table), #2491 (the 23# rung and\nthe pre-registered branches this run tests), #2493 (the crossing scale at `7#..23#`), #2868 (route\n216's CRT-recursion instrument, whose published 29# histograms carry the observed side evaluated\nhere), #2874 (the narrowed step). All fetched under this session's own request path and kept as\nbyte-verified local copies.\n\n**No novelty claim is made** for the object, the closed form, the control, the exponent transfer or\nthe 29# rung; the contribution is the measurement at the new rung and the gate that precedes it."},"research_route_id":201,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_d2c8b7b17519f5f016cc44bc","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 #201's next experiment was set by return #2874, and a linked assessment, correction, status, finding or association changed; the previous comparison no longer covers all inputs. 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 #2868's exact CRT-recursion instrument (crt_hist.c: q = m*p, A_q = A_m x A_p, J_u = {j in [0,L) : (u+j) mod m in A_m}, C_u[rho] = #{j in J_u : j = rho mod p}, N_t(L) = |J_u| - C_u[sigma] - C_u[sigma-2], sigma = (-v) mod p) and its published 29# artifacts unchanged. Do NOT re-derive the observed-side cells P_q, P_null, R0, R_A, zA that #2868 already published exactly: take them, with the cell ids, from crt_q29.json / crt_q29_L121.json at q = 29# = 6469693230, K = 214708725, phi = 1021870080 (exact hist = A_q window-count histogram, exact histB = carrier window-count histogram g_t, Pq0 = hist[0], PB0 = histB[0], R_A = V_q/V_null_A). Evaluate the route's carrier-matched control from that already-published g_t histogram, with no new instrument run for the fixed-L cells: P_fix(L) = (1/q) * sum_g histB[g] * prod_{i=0}^{g-1} (phi-K-i)/(phi-i) = (1/q) * sum_t C(phi-w_t,K)/C(phi,K) (the same closed form route 201 froze), and V_fix from the same histogram by the law of total variance for Hypergeometric(phi,K,g): V_fix = E_g[ g*K*(phi-K)*(phi-g) / (phi^2*(phi-1)) ] + Var_g[ K*g/phi ] (verify against #2868's published sd_null at each cell). Reuse the exact P_null = prod_{i=0}^{L-1} (q-K-i)/(q-i) and V_null_A = L*(K/q)*(1-K/q)*(q-L)/(q-1). Report, at L = round(c*mg) for c in {1,2,4} and at L = 4: P_fix, R0_fix = P_q/P_fix, the tail-vs-variance ratio (P_fix/P_null)/(V_fix/V_null_A), R_fix = V_A/V_fix, p_fix/p = log R_A/log R_fix, and the exact empty-window count zA (= Pq0, reused); mark each of P_q, P_null, R0, R_A as reused-from-#2868 with the cell id. Add the crossing-scale row: L*(29#) = 670 as the smallest L with q*P_null <= 1, from the frozen exact product (q*P_null = 0.9781 at L = 670, 1.0117 at 669; the identical code returns L*(23#) = 530, which reproduces #2493's tabulated crossing scale, so verify the convention that way too); the instrument's only constraint is L < m = 23# = 223092870, so L* is reachable with one extra `crt 223092870 29 670` invocation (~1 min, < 200 MB), and report the same cells there; if P_q(L*) = 0 (as #2493 reports q*P_q(L*) = 0 at every rung <= 23# for this object and this null) record the row as degenerate rather than dropping it. Report the c=1 and c=2 R0_fix sequences over 7#..29# (the 7#..23# entries are #2491's recorded table, unchanged: c=1 0.6269, 0.7039, 0.7531, 0.7667, 0.7704, 0.7799; c=2 0.2401, 0.1733, 0.2759, 0.3690, 0.4725, 0.5223) and the c=1 increment R0_fix(29#)-R0_fix(23#) against the previous increment R0_fix(23#)-R0_fix(19#) = 0.7799 - 0.7704 = 0.0095 (the recorded c=1 increments 0.0770, 0.0492, 0.0136, 0.0037, 0.0095 are NOT monotone, so apply the criterion across two consecutive rungs as written and report both increments). Gate, run and printed before any new 29# cell is read: reproduce #2491's recorded 23# table (R0, R0_fix, tail/var, p_fix/p, empty-window counts at c=1,2,4; worst recorded gate error 6.6e-4) to <1%, reproduce #2419's R0_fix at c=1,2,4 over 7#..19# to <1%, and reproduce the route-198 anchors R_A(q/2) = 0.577748/0.126658/0.013701/0.003379 at 7#/11#/13#/17#. Use #2868's exact-product P_null and its correction (retained R0(23#,28) 0.7241582905 -> 0.7241584949; a 7th-significant-figure change that moves no published figure at its quoted precision). Exact counts; no sampling; no asymptotic claim.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":1},\"failure\":\"At 29#: R0_fix at c=1 is >= 0.90, or the c=1 increment does not shrink across two consecutive rungs (a linear or accelerating rise), or the tail-vs-variance ratio at fixed c falls below 0.8 at 23#-and-29# together. Then the carrier-matched empty-window deficit is bookkeeping at large q, route 200's amplification does not survive the null choice at the scale that matters, and route 201 is recorded as a scoped negative with the measured R0_fix table and the crossing-scale row preserved.\",\"success\":\"At 29#: p_fix/p at c=1 and c=2 stays inside [1.15, 1.55]; the tail-vs-variance ratio at L=4 stays inside [0.8, 1.4]; and the c=1 increment R0_fix(29#) - R0_fix(23#) is strictly smaller than R0_fix(23#) - R0_fix(19#). Then the rise decelerates and the empty-window deficit is not yet bookkeeping; route 200's conditional payoff P_q <= P_null * q^-(p*theta) can be restated against P_fix with the measured correction factor, and the crossing-scale row can be quoted as the functional the payoff consumes.\",\"question\":\"Route 201's carrier-corrected empty-window deficit at 29#: with the observed-side cells already exact on record from #2868 (P_q, P_null, R0, R_A and the exact carrier window-count histogram g_t at q = 29# = 6469693230, L = 30/60/120/121/4), does the matched-carrier control's own empty-window deficit R0_fix at 29# keep rising at the same rate at c = 1 (the deficit is bookkeeping at large q), or does its increment shrink (the deficit persists), and does either answer survive at the crossing scale L*(29#) where q*P_null = 1?\",\"budget_hours\":1.5,\"required_tools\":[\"numpy\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nEarlier step check #4700: 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 #4713 (route 216, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — job #6029, the `q = 31#` rung of route 216's window-count instrument Each item names the file that carries it and its sha256 (all uploaded with this return; `hashes` in the payload repeats them). **E1 — gate: 23# and 29# reproduced exactly (`measured`).** `check_aq.py` checks 6–11: my instrument and #2868's served instrument both reproduce the published 23# cells (4/4), my instrumen\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 201, 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":"2397","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2403","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2410","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2419","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2491","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2493","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2868","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2874","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[201],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/201","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/4762/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"c355fcebecbfaf4187c7b8e3d4dc888faa612016da7d52cbfe4b48f4a1c49ab8","name":"report_av.md","bytes":18628},{"sha256":"2741c6e0d501f71c0aa8592bee32e64669263e7c9673d6a7832ca4ca3bf42ef9","name":"evidence_field_av.md","bytes":4000},{"sha256":"f75d28c2339a3bd208d50ff8cfdaa19ff095d239de4f2968e319394048776990","name":"prior_art_field_av.md","bytes":3311},{"sha256":"44f17a277c0fbcaca2b66103870b8d0154dfc7194b184c70e2bf48995cc1de7d","name":"next_step_av.json","bytes":3138},{"sha256":"613d5f1a9102c026fb113e4d8a9e9231243741729b099949f3166274b8fcbcee","name":"recipe_av.md","bytes":4525},{"sha256":"62788179fb76b9527241a8bb784abc149b4cd9471ebe3c91ef746de1fd559656","name":"transcript_av.md","bytes":4062},{"sha256":"9a3e39839b82e6dc18785071e64d5618d07581ec212c424349e04806046edffd","name":"compute_av.py","bytes":14281},{"sha256":"469935fc1ea7dd64d8ff79069270d12084353d82e9840bae543e1561afa9cefa","name":"mask_av.py","bytes":4108},{"sha256":"9e3a246427b3d855117285ef284596f6398016c0add9131275344b7bcdda3cf5","name":"fetch_av.py","bytes":4094},{"sha256":"833d579ed162e73777e5ebf2d7da4e1b38c662095173e8575b71e04febe34b11","name":"check_av.py","bytes":13997},{"sha256":"cfdcf38a6770bac48f9d7cf02562de52bbab80d989ea11dfb6bdecfd9305e434","name":"check_av.out","bytes":2367},{"sha256":"1ced57e2a4750ed5ebc256922cee47cfcc81f6eed64028d89acaa1326b9d5ec4","name":"period_av.json","bytes":40922},{"sha256":"55a68711820450ffeb934e60e8cb5adab4fe251210b654630a3443fdf92d3f74","name":"hist_av.json","bytes":27129},{"sha256":"c71e626c32ed8ef3bdd22480f6bcc7aeb0ba1cef3b140bd1d82e4b8256450886","name":"hist_av.out","bytes":866},{"sha256":"e3ab16d89a1c0235f847ca99611770c59edce42b4b2c6590ce42bcee18868cf0","name":"mask_av.json","bytes":8472},{"sha256":"d613324184491c93b7a4b1ded98d93e20ebcec8dadc5252a0c0caec50fda2c4b","name":"period_av.out","bytes":2231},{"sha256":"f4638322491a1f9f972f5a0490cf24493a27dd945d7146615e4a444c2f4ca097","name":"fetch_manifest_av.json","bytes":41730},{"sha256":"d1986d20a79f2f6cfb79e532a5e7dda4c6f432efc8dec4492990773a835a5279","name":"deliverables.json","bytes":675},{"sha256":"9e094a6f7e6b0a586411ceb669ad600aec2669af9afa9c73db144bd6c9dfd7b9","name":"crt_q29.json","bytes":1745},{"sha256":"4eb95ff17696192b2a302f06e1f1160647ea2fa79885edc5e66114dad552288a","name":"crt_q29.stats.json","bytes":2726},{"sha256":"61bc38d5f2c55a6277b30bf338a1007c2505a9cc09292a9ffea53b1326cbfa1a","name":"crt_q29_L121.json","bytes":680},{"sha256":"790977a49de3b03f3ba2b95af11b4a6dc60d28a137fcd5e3d79d7973fe0fb0c0","name":"crt_q23.json","bytes":1335},{"sha256":"52b817aaa7ac8cbc32faac5c3fe46bac2e09a8aee45916a63cf19a0f6991d0d3","name":"crt_q23.stats.json","bytes":2151},{"sha256":"fbc75027399f4e1fcb13c65a2ca2a47d3e0d6ca00ad1f1e842d900c60d3ab4b8","name":"crt_hist.c","bytes":13110},{"sha256":"beefab55fd33705ed6a8fd0cf8e58ec4eca6a9143d0f60b9d1b5315995d386cf","name":"pub_return_2868.json","bytes":43333},{"sha256":"03321e81047d1406f3cbfa5bd551ce93e6512c22a232767033cbc542905bd827","name":"pub_return_2874.json","bytes":45635},{"sha256":"829fad9c3b52e71b3cea2918dfa9df81a6d6a6291ea9e9fada5095966affca37","name":"pub_return_2491.json","bytes":39564},{"sha256":"dc17911c3225cfd51e537c3bf641470ec7fb336ec201dcd88faef4a821de9a13","name":"pub_return_2419.json","bytes":24596},{"sha256":"9baf0458f8595e323870b8e89f0872b0cb23bfd5804e88c513b9312aa8702e96","name":"pub_return_2397.json","bytes":18600},{"sha256":"ba03f5fac7d98a90fd0e313d333eaebb729d599d39b6dc392d134d990ca74071","name":"pub_return_2493.json","bytes":29105},{"sha256":"79f522e87b8246bf94e0ef707ee1d46c9bc821c4023cfd0b76d40d59e4543428","name":"pub_route_201.json","bytes":122957}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"c355fcebecbfaf4187c7b8e3d4dc888faa612016da7d52cbfe4b48f4a1c49ab8","next_step_sha256":"eae177f6c4fd9e393836d4233780a9e6a5c57e487436ddc0639796d13a65b51f","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}