{"id":4798,"job_id":9670,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":61,"model":"glm-5.3-flash","provider":"unknown","report_md":"# Route 148 step check - the #3266 reachability-guard step is unanswered on the record\n\n**Verdict: outcome `promising`.** No return recorded after #3266 on route 148 or on the linked\nroutes answers the held step (extend the 1.1.5 `producers` link rule with a bounded reachability\nguard, re-run the rule over the 41-file served population and the job #5319 fixture set, and\nreport the link count, D, U, U/D and the may-minus-strict delta before and after, plus a\nruntime-flag fixture). The step is copied exactly as `next_step`; the held pursuit goes out with\nthis note.\n\n## Step custody (verified this run, read-only)\n\n`research-routes/148`: `active`, revision **15**, `last_return_id` **3266**, obstacle null. The\nserved `next_step` is object-equal to #3266's `research.next_step`; canonical sha256\n`0159b4cf76a3a307ce50b5e1f2c2fba2299c2d5ac893b020d52b1738c50f16de` on both. The issued\n`research_task` repeats the step's `question`/`success`/`failure` verbatim, `intent: extend`,\n`predecessor_returns: [3266]`.\n\n## Route 148: nothing after the setter\n\nThe route's 15 events end at return **3266** (created 2026-10-12T19:36:53.275Z); the maximum\n`return_id` over events is 3266, so no route-148 return postdates the setter. The only route-148\njob issued after it, pursue **#6847**, is `expired` with no return (the setter's own job **#5319**\nis `accepted` - its return is the setter #3266). On its own route the step is neither answered nor replaced.\n\n## Linked routes: three post-setter returns, none on this step\n\n- **#4102** (route 139, job #8389, 2026-10-16, recorded): a 57-row base-certificate recheck\n  (45 patch rows from #1522, 12 revision rows from #1518) with an old-side-aware resolver that\n  probes every history version of each row's old and new path names; 55/57 rows keep a valid\n  base certificate, #175/#176 unresolved only because the served patch no longer reproduces the\n  recorded `patch_hash`; acceptance-time dating labels are not obtainable for 37/55 pre-mirror\n  rows. `depends_on` [1522, 1523, 1622, 1891, 1822] - no route-148 return. This is certificate\n  custody and publication dating, not the sahdated contract: no mention of the 1.1.5 `producers`\n  rule, the 41-file population, the job #5319 fixtures or reachability.\n- **#4027** (route 141, job #8214, 2026-10-15, recorded): route 141's own first-look step check;\n  it copies #2176's step exactly and adds an apply-premise re-check. `depends_on`\n  [2176, 1453, 1822, 2060, 11, 42, 43, 46, 289] - no route-148 overlap. An unchanged-step\n  comparison on another route is not new evidence for this step.\n- **#4042** (route 141, job #4775, 2026-10-15, measured): the 5 recovered queue rows have exact\n  integrated-bytes outputs, two version-dependent, every base pinned in-band, #1333 v3-to-v4\n  control byte-for-byte. `depends_on` [2176] - no route-148 overlap; no link-rule content.\n\nKeyword scan over the three report bodies (case-insensitive): `sahdated`, `1.1.5`, `producers`,\n`runtime-load`, `census-selftest`, `if False`, `reachab` - zero hits in all three.\n\n## The route's open findings change nothing\n\n`report_kg.md` finding **#92828** (open, advisory): #3266's `depends_on` padding and the\n\"20-file population\" wording. `report_eg.md` findings **#52213** and **#52214** (open, advisory):\nprior-art query count, and which step the strict 0-link reading rests on. All three are\nwording/bookkeeping; none answers or narrows the guard step.\n\n## Conclusion\n\nThe bounded reachability guard - reject a selected producer whose write site is dominated by a\nliteral-false guard (`if False:` / `while False:`) or is otherwise statically unreachable in the\nsame file - is unmeasured on the record: no return builds it, re-runs the rule over the 41-file\npopulation or the #5319 fixture set under it, or reports the before/after link count, D, U, U/D\nand the may-minus-strict delta. Outcome `promising`; `next_step` copied exactly. Read-only\nrecord comparison; `cpu_hours 0`.","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-19T10:10:53.943Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[3266,4027,4042,4102],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":359457,"models":{"glm-5.3-flash":114727},"output":114727,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":15294625,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"Read-only served-record comparison; nothing executed. (1) GET research-routes/148 with Accept:\napplication/json; verify state active, revision 15, last_return_id 3266, obstacle null, and that\nthe served next_step is object-equal to #3266's research.next_step (canonical sha256\n0159b4cf76a3a307ce50b5e1f2c2fba2299c2d5ac893b020d52b1738c50f16de). (2) Scan the route's events:\nmax(return_id) = 3266; the only later route-148 job, #6847 (pursue), is expired with no return.\n(3) GET research-routes/139 and research-routes/141; list every event with created_at after the setter's\n2026-10-12T19:36:53.275Z: #4102, #4027, #4042. (4) GET return/3266, return/4102, return/4027,\nreturn/4042; read each report; check each depends_on for route-148 returns; scan each report\nbody for sahdated / 1.1.5 / producers / runtime-load / census-selftest / if False / reachab.\n(5) GET findings?path=report_kg.md and findings?path=report_eg.md; confirm the three open\nfindings are advisory wording items. (6) Conclude no return answers the guard step; copy the\nserved next_step object unchanged into research.next_step.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"xhigh","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":148,"next_step":{"method":"Extend the 1.1.5 `producers` link rule in one place: when the unique scanned producer of the key is selected, reject it if its write site lies inside a body dominated by a literal-false guard (`if False:` / `while False:`) or is otherwise statically unreachable in the same file. Re-run the rule over the same 41-file served population (returns 1541, 1549, 1837, 2033, 2026, 2190, 2317, 2331, 2405) and over the fixture set of job #5319 (the dead-branch negative plus the two controls), and report the link count, D, U, U/D and the may-minus-strict delta before and after. Add one further fixture: a producer that writes the key on a branch guarded by a runtime flag (reachable) to show the guard does not over-reject. Inputs are already on record: the 41 served bytes (sha256 manifest in job #5319's return), 1.1.5 sha256 0a11f4b1c6f506783d1b7b172f4927da56cfd0c89962e25a44c7d4592c8f4cc1, the fixture sources and check_kg.py.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"The guard either drops a corpus link (over-rejection) or cannot be expressed without whole-program reachability; then record the narrower claim that the rule's soundness is bounded to corpora whose producer branches are live, and keep the witness as an open interpretation.","success":"The 5 corpus links (census-selftest.py:114/205/206/207/208 -> census.py:638, kind dated) are unchanged and the dead-branch fixture stays unresolved, so the rule's precision is 1.00 on the corpus AND the dead-branch witness no longer links; the two controls are unchanged; D, U, U/D and the +5 delta are re-reported for both readings.","question":"Can a bounded reachability guard be added to 1.1.5's runtime-load link rule so that a producer whose write site is provably unreachable (a literal `if False:`/`while False:`-guarded branch) does not link, without changing any of the 5 corpus links?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[3266,4027,4042,4102],"evidence_md":"Route 148 step check - evidence (job #9670, 19 Oct 2026). Read-only served-record comparison;\ncpu_hours 0; nothing executed, no number recomputed, no experiment run.\n\n**Custody.** research-routes/148: active, revision 15, last_return_id 3266, obstacle null (saved\nread sha256 610e66b8...c4c356). Served next_step object-equal to #3266's research.next_step;\ncanonical sha256 0159b4cf76a3a307ce50b5e1f2c2fba2299c2d5ac893b020d52b1738c50f16de on both\n(return/3266 saved read sha256 6e91cad1...efc2ab). Issued research_task.{question,success,\nfailure} repeat the step's fields verbatim, intent extend, predecessor_returns [3266].\n\n**Route 148 record.** 15 events, newest return 3266 (created 2026-10-12T19:36:53.275Z): no\nroute-148 return postdates the setter. Only route-148 job issued after it: pursue #6847,\nexpired with no return. Declared dependencies and basis all predate or equal 3266; associations\nempty.\n\n**Compared returns (served JSON, full reports read).**\n- return/4102 (route 139, job #8389, 2026-10-16, recorded): 57-row base-certificate recheck\n  (45 patch rows from #1522, 12 revision rows from #1518), old-side-aware resolver over\n  history versions, 55/57 certified, #175/#176 unresolved on changed patch_hash; acceptance-time\n  dating labels unobtainable for 37/55 pre-mirror rows. depends_on [1522, 1523, 1622, 1891,\n  1822]: no route-148 return. Settles certificate custody and publication dating, not the\n  sahdated instant contract.\n- return/4027 (route 141, job #8214, 2026-10-15, recorded): route 141's own first-look step\n  check; copies #2176's step exactly (canonical sha256 d49b31e8...); adds one apply-premise\n  re-check. depends_on [2176, 1453, 1822, 2060, 11, 42, 43, 46, 289]: no route-148 overlap.\n- return/4042 (route 141, job #4775, 2026-10-15, measured): 5 recovered queue rows have exact\n  integrated-bytes outputs; #11 and #289 version-dependent with identified bases; #1333\n  v3-to-v4 control byte-for-byte. depends_on [2176]: no route-148 overlap.\n\n**Keyword scan** (case-insensitive over the three report_md bodies): sahdated, 1.1.5, producers,\nruntime-load/runtime_load, census-selftest, \"if False\", reachab - zero hits in all three.\n\n**Linked-route coverage.** route/139 events: latest 4102 (2026-10-16), next-newest 2287\n(2026-10-04) - only 4102 postdates the setter. route/141 events: 4042 (2026-10-15T18:27), 4027\n(2026-10-15T17:02), then 2176 (2026-10-02) - both postdate the setter and both are read. The\nserver-selected set (#4102, #4042) plus #4027 from the event scan is the complete post-setter\nset on the linked routes named for this assignment.\n\n**Open findings.** report_kg.md: #92828 (advisory: depends_on padding; \"20-file population\"\nwording). report_eg.md: #52213 (advisory: query-count mismatch), #52214 (advisory: which step\nthe strict 0-link reading rests on; \"guarded\" at census-selftest.py:205-208 dates the inherited\ninstant key, not the mutated copy). None answers or narrows the guard step.\n\n**Decision.** The step's question - can a bounded reachability guard be added to 1.1.5's\nruntime-load link rule so that a provably unreachable producer does not link, without changing\nany of the 5 corpus links - is unmeasured on the record: no return builds the guard, re-runs the\nrule over the 41-file population or the #5319 fixture set under it, or reports before/after link\ncount, D, U, U/D and the may-minus-strict delta. Outcome promising; the step is copied exactly\nas next_step."},"research_route_id":148,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_305c5ed257ff1e3f8cabe7ff","run_id":"run_ea7fc9bbac57886dd14dd349","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":"malaiwah","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #148's next experiment was set by return #3266, 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\":\"Extend the 1.1.5 `producers` link rule in one place: when the unique scanned producer of the key is selected, reject it if its write site lies inside a body dominated by a literal-false guard (`if False:` / `while False:`) or is otherwise statically unreachable in the same file. Re-run the rule over the same 41-file served population (returns 1541, 1549, 1837, 2033, 2026, 2190, 2317, 2331, 2405) and over the fixture set of job #5319 (the dead-branch negative plus the two controls), and report the link count, D, U, U/D and the may-minus-strict delta before and after. Add one further fixture: a producer that writes the key on a branch guarded by a runtime flag (reachable) to show the guard does not over-reject. Inputs are already on record: the 41 served bytes (sha256 manifest in job #5319's return), 1.1.5 sha256 0a11f4b1c6f506783d1b7b172f4927da56cfd0c89962e25a44c7d4592c8f4cc1, the fixture sources and check_kg.py.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"The guard either drops a corpus link (over-rejection) or cannot be expressed without whole-program reachability; then record the narrower claim that the rule's soundness is bounded to corpora whose producer branches are live, and keep the witness as an open interpretation.\",\"success\":\"The 5 corpus links (census-selftest.py:114/205/206/207/208 -> census.py:638, kind dated) are unchanged and the dead-branch fixture stays unresolved, so the rule's precision is 1.00 on the corpus AND the dead-branch witness no longer links; the two controls are unchanged; D, U, U/D and the +5 delta are re-reported for both readings.\",\"question\":\"Can a bounded reachability guard be added to 1.1.5's runtime-load link rule so that a producer whose write site is provably unreachable (a literal `if False:`/`while False:`-guarded branch) does not link, without changing any of the 5 corpus links?\",\"budget_hours\":1,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #1541, #1549, #1837, #2019, #2026, #2033, #2185, #2190, #2194, #2317, #2331, #2405, #2534, #3259, #3266 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #4102 (route 139, progress, recorded, recorded): Machine-checked, stdlib-only, offline. Population frozen from the served record: 45 patch rows = #1522 slice-certificates.json (069a6d4b…), 12 revision rows = #1518 base-certificates.json (61debd88…). Per-row candidates = current served bytes + every /history version of the row's OLD and NEW names (bare names prefix-probed), plus the row's own served uploads; each /files byte sha-checked (131/131)\n- Return #4042 (route 141, result, accepted, measured): # Evidence — route 141: integrated-bytes outputs for the 5 content-matched queue rows **Claim.** For the 5 rows #1453 skipped that #2176 matched to a served path, applying the patch to the matched path yields a determinate integrated-bytes sha256 at the base each was produced from: - #11 `research/a3-08-adjacent-pairs.js`, base v1 `a1a074f3…` → `1351dbbb312f92f5fabeb8a03799bdc501f16c879d29c601c7\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 148, outcome, evidence_md, depends_on}, with one of:\n- outcome \"known\": the returns you name in depends_on already answer the step; evidence_md says what each settles. No next_step. The route stops here and the pursuit is not handed out.\n- outcome \"progress\" with a new next_step that builds on the answer where they answer part of it; the old step is replaced.\n- outcome \"promising\" with the step above copied exactly as next_step when it is still open; the held pursuit then goes out with your note, and these returns never hold it again.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"3266","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4027","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4042","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4102","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[148],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/148","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/4798/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"e41be977f0186dfeb5a7dac38703c54ece9f8c13276c40f7861b28c621eeec39","next_step_sha256":"0159b4cf76a3a307ce50b5e1f2c2fba2299c2d5ac893b020d52b1738c50f16de","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}