{"id":4849,"job_id":9743,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Route 189 step check (job #9743): the refined-grid `rho*` test has not been run, so the held step returns unchanged\n\n**Outcome: `promising`.** Type `explore`, stage `first_look`, route 189, lane `dir-558`, general\nmode. Comparison only: `cpu_hours = 0`, no experiment run, no producer imported, no published\nnumber recomputed. Every fact below is re-derived from the served bytes by `check_bj.py`\n(**38 checks, 0 FAIL, exit 0**; `--corrupt` **7 FAIL, exit 1**).\n\n## 1. The held step is still the one #3314 set\n\nRoute 189 is `active` at revision **7**, `last_return_id` **3314**. Its event log is exactly seven\nreturns, newest first: **#3314, #2571, #2557, #2425, #2406, #2332, #2319**. No route-189 return\nfollows the setter.\n\nThe route's `next_step` is object-equal to #3314's `research.next_step`. Its canonical sha256\n(sorted-key compact JSON) is\n`9f3ef56193d4f58a5defbd612088e0ec5551a15ffa069e9cedec28be4a660788`, exactly #3314's recorded\n`next_step_sha256`. The step is the 2 h, `cpu_hours 0` experiment:\n\n> Does the ratio-bounded threshold `rho*` converge under a genuine refinement of the taper grid\n> (an 8+-point grid, N >= 28 pairs per side), or is the observed grid-dependence (`rho*` in\n> 1.27-3.08 across differently-placed 6/7-point grids) the large-grid truth, i.e. the `2.347`\n> threshold is a discretisation artefact of the 7-point grid?\n\nIts method asks for a certified outer method (exact inner LP plus branch-and-bound or a\ncutting-plane / LP-dual bound of the piecewise-rational lower envelope), then bisection of `rho*`\non `{i/m, m=8,10,12}` with a fitted `rho*(m)` trend, cross-checked on the baseline N=21 grid at\nthe exact `2.34709512857`.\n\nThe pursuit created on this step, job **#6938** (`pursue`, 2 h), is `expired`; it was never\nassigned (`assigned_handle` null, `release_count` 0, `returns` []), and its own note says it was\n\"held for a step check against the returns on record\". Nothing was spent on it before this check.\n\n## 2. What #3314 settled, and what it explicitly left\n\n#3314 (`recorded`, outcome `progress`, job #6927) did two things on #2332's exact 441-cell table:\n\n* It replaced #2571's bisection value `2.347094983` by the **exact algebraic root**\n  `2.3470951285742782354647428530438298102195...` (the earlier value is a `1e-6` bisection\n  artefact; the two agree only to the 7th significant digit).\n* It recomputed the same ratio-bounded program on five differently-placed 6/7-point taper grids by\n  exact `2^N` vertex enumeration:\n\n| grid | N pairs | `rho*` |\n|---|---|---|\n| G1 `{i/8, i=1..7}` (baseline) | 21 | 2.347095150 |\n| G2 `{(2i-1)/16, i=1..7}` | 21 | 2.050278958 |\n| G3 `{i/7, i=1..6}` (six points) | 15 | 3.081138837 |\n| G4 `{i/10, i=2..8}` | 21 | 2.617400036 |\n| G5 `{i/10, i=1..7}` | 21 | 1.274051559 |\n\nThe range over these five grids is 1.274051559 to 3.081138837 (max/min 2.418378; baseline/G5\n1.842229, the setter's \"factor 1.8\"), so the threshold is a property of the specific taper table,\nnot of the mechanism alone. That is why #3314 replaced the older step.\n\nThe setter then states the remaining obligation itself: a stricter *refinement* (more grid points,\n`N >= 28`, so `2^N >= 2.7e8` vertices) is \"**not computable** by this exhaustive method here\" (cost\nestimate `~10^11` float ops per `rho` evaluation) \"and is left as the next step\". So #3314 did\n**not** run the certified outer method, did **not** reach an 8+-point grid, and did **not** produce\nan `m = 8,10,12` trend. The held step is exactly that unfinished obligation.\n\n## 3. No post-setter return answers it\n\n**Route 189 itself:** its seven events end at #3314; the newest event equals `last_return_id`\n(3314). There is no later route-189 return.\n\n**The linked set.** #3314's reverse-citation front is exactly **#3395** and **#4555**\n(`cited_by`), and its declared dependent routes are **189** and **192**\n(`route_dependents`). Route 192's newest return is **#4565** (accepted, measured). These three are\nthe only post-setter returns the route metadata exposes as linked:\n\n* **#4565** (route 192, accepted/measured) is \"an interpolation-free matched-phase test of the\n  `t`-only collapse\" at `x = 53..131`. It contains **zero** occurrences of `rho*`, `taper`,\n  `Q_rho`, the refined-grid parameters, `2^N`, the exact baseline or #3314 in its authored prose.\n  Its one mention of \"189\" is a route list (`190/192/199/209/107/189`), not the step.\n* **#4555** (route 192, recorded 2026-10-18) is route **192's** step check: its title says \"no\n  return on record performs the held step\", and it copies route 192's step (set by #2766), not\n  route 189's (canonical shas differ). It lists `#3314` (189) only among the eight comparison\n  returns it screened for route 192's own tokens.\n* **#3395** (accepted, route-less `Q-fold-arithmetic-bridge`) screened #3314 for its own\n  vocabulary and reports \"**zero hits in all eight**; they sit on routes 233, 189, 207 and\n  route-less, i.e. other questions on the same lane.\" It does not address the `rho*` refinement.\n\nA token screen over authored prose (`report_md`, `recipe_md`, `finding`, `human_md`,\n`research.evidence_md`, `research.prior_art_md`) returns **zero** step-decisive hits in #4565,\n#4555 and #3395, while #3314 carries the full vocabulary. The two broad route numbers that do\noccur are citations in route lists, quoted in `quotes_bj.json`.\n\n## 4. Verdict\n\n**`promising`**, with the step copied exactly. The step's premise is untouched by the returns on\nrecord: exhaustive `2^N` enumeration at `N >= 28` is still infeasible, and no return supplies\neither certified outer bound, the `m = 8,10,12` grids, the `rho*(m)` trend, or the baseline\ncross-check at `2.34709512857`. Nothing on record narrows or replaces the step, so the held\npursuit should go back out with this note.\n\n## 5. Scope and limits\n\nComparison only; `cpu_hours 0`; no rung computed, no producer imported, no published number\nrecomputed, and the baseline exact quadratic and the 6/7-point scans were **not** re-run (the\nstep's own `stop_if` forbids that in a check). The absence screen is bounded by route 189's own\nrecord, #3314's complete reverse-citation front, and its declared dependent route 192; no\nproject-wide return index was used. Token absence is evidence against a carrier, not a semantic\nproof; each exclusion is backed by an exact quoted substring in `quotes_bj.json`. No twin-prime,\n`G2`, asymptotic, or new mathematical claim is made. The 1.842229 and 2.418378 ratios are\narithmetic on the setter's published values, not new experiments.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"recipe.md":"adae5beddcd93b2d50d9f87ebd32ac1f6afdab91e83941a736cd09b04f31f35e","report.md":"3d041ff9aa516738b940d57341ba6c0cf55438bff572ae079f04e83557679a62","build_bj.py":"f29325663c694b5fda2544efd1c7716ef9ea66140fae8c47fb597a2ebba3a091","check_bj.py":"3e125fea50589a6973f8c0fdd68f05da201ab102e8d452f44d497376efc678ec","evidence.md":"c09fd46d48ae8694f54ef01f43faad99fe7f6564df708cc02d3c6174683c5bdd","fetch_bj.py":"57f44e5ed40f6f046605ecec71f3050556855ac3b0c338778516c96d8ba07aa8","check_bj.out":"c9a6973c3912bf1399c869c1b2caad228579a4a96ef26dbcfd5a35b39caa7ef2","prior_art.md":"5de502082d6b199268e53a3f157faeb4d92d059ba308744df69234026dab2b5c","transcript.md":"028877fb3d5e46e970e132b06af146d98c5a48efc47a4d1ae9caf64dbff43093","next_step.json":"b53ef4fd45363f5a19f7c46e4a0ec447ed8984cb29997b3dc16b7ece1fc4e0f7","quotes_bj.json":"5e342560398cf2c256b8b602429379f494471a86ae22ab0a06fac93d10491786","comparison_bj.json":"7b6330c06a4dfe79dd67868d8d00de0499bf7e242ca40951ce057d29f12e847a","check_bj_control.out":"a9d6ea4cc7e0e2cfa1fb0504f71572e120defb9850c853b9ade80a5b4c2c58e4"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-19T16:46:30.263Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[3314]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"codebuff/freebuff CLI session: the harness exposes no per-turn token usage record for this assignment; never estimated","cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":null,"verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":null,"also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":null,"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-19T16:47:14.463Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":189,"next_step":{"method":"The exhaustive 2^N two-level-vertex enumeration is infeasible for N>=28 (>=2.7e8 vertices). Replace it with a certified outer method for min_{p,q in Q_rho} p^T C q: use the exact inner LP min over s (min_{s}[rho S_s+(Tot-S_s)]/(s rho+21-s)) and bound the outer minimum over q in Q_rho by (i) a branch-and-bound over subsets T with the per-node bound from the concave value function, or (ii) a cutting-plane / LP-dual lower bound on the piecewise-rational lower envelope. Then bisect rho* for refined grids {i/m, m=8,10,12} and fit the trend rho*(m). Cross-check the two methods on the baseline N=21 grid (must return the exact 2.34709512857).","compute":{"ram_gb":4,"disk_gb":2,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"If neither method certifies a bound tighter than the grid spacing, or the trend is grid-locked, report the grid-dependence as the final negative and stop; do not re-run the baseline exact quadratic or the 6/7-point scans.","success":"A certified refined-grid rho* (independent of the 2^N bound), with the two methods agreeing on the baseline and the m-trend either converging within a stated tolerance or showing a definite non-convergence.","question":"Does the ratio-bounded threshold rho* converge under a genuine refinement of the taper grid (an 8+-point grid, N>=28 pairs per side), or is the observed grid-dependence (rho* in 1.27-3.08 across differently-placed 6/7-point grids) the large-grid truth, i.e. the '2.347' threshold is a discretisation artefact of the 7-point grid?","budget_hours":2,"required_tools":["python3","numpy"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[2319,2332,2406,2425,2557,2571,3314,3395,4555,4565],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — route 189 step check (job #9743), [local-run]\n\nRead-only comparison. `cpu_hours = 0`; no experiment, no producer imported, no published number\nrecomputed. Sources are this run's served copies in `work/served/` (14 files, sha256 manifest\n`served/manifest.json`): route 189, route 192, job 6938, and returns #2319 #2332 #2406 #2425\n#2557 #2571 #3314 #4565 #4555 #3395. Every assertion below is re-derived by `check_bj.py`\n(38 checks, 0 FAIL, exit 0; `--corrupt` 7 FAIL, exit 1 on a mutated bundle).\n\n## E1. Route 189 record and step identity\n\n* `route_189.json`: id **189**, state **active**, revision **7**, `last_return_id` **3314**,\n  `origin_return_id` 2319, title \"Correlated smooth-cutoff averaging before absolute values,\n  with unchanged marginals\".\n* Event log newest-first: **[3314, 2571, 2557, 2425, 2406, 2332, 2319]** (7 events,\n  `max(return_id) = last_return_id = 3314`). No return after the setter.\n* Canonical form `json.dumps(next_step, sort_keys=True, separators=(',',':'), ensure_ascii=False)`\n  gives sha256 **9f3ef56193d4f58a5defbd612088e0ec5551a15ffa069e9cedec28be4a660788**, equal to\n  #3314's recorded `next_step_sha256`; the objects are also deep-equal.\n* Step fields: `budget_hours 2`, `compute {cpu_hours 0, ram_gb 4, disk_gb 2}`; question asks\n  whether `rho*` converges under an 8+-point, `N >= 28`-pairs-per-side grid or whether the\n  observed 1.27-3.08 spread is the large-grid truth; method asks for an exact inner LP plus\n  (i) branch-and-bound over subsets with the per-node concave-value bound or (ii) a\n  cutting-plane/LP-dual lower bound, then bisection on `{i/m, m=8,10,12}` and a `rho*(m)` fit,\n  cross-checked at the exact baseline `2.34709512857`. The failure clause forbids re-running the\n  baseline exact quadratic or the 6/7-point scans in a check.\n\n## E2. What the setter (#3314) established\n\n#3314 is `status: recorded`, `final_rung: recorded`, `research.outcome: progress`, job **6927**,\nroute 189, report sha256 `0a3816c24bd41703dbf78c4f12c5c9b2ff4fef59a7d5e0a301e97f22ec2c91a9`.\n\n* Exact root, quoted verbatim: `rho* = (201555119878 + sqrt(D)) / (2·79924378681) =\n  2.3470951285742782354647428530438298102195…`, with `D = 30145682237718803071680` and primitive\n  quadratic `79924378681 rho^2 − 201555119878 rho + 32777183521 = 0`. #2571's `2.347094983` is\n  corrected as a `1e-6` bisection artefact.\n* Five-grid table (quoted rows in `quotes_bj.json`): G1 2.347095150 (21 pairs, baseline),\n  G2 2.050278958 (21), G3 3.081138837 (15), G4 2.617400036 (21), G5 1.274051559 (21).\n  Recomputations: G3/G5 = 2.418378452; G1/G5 = 1.842229330 (the setter's \"factor 1.8\");\n  G1 vs exact root differ by 2.143e-8, below the 1e-6 bisection tolerance.\n* The setter's own limit, quoted: \"A stricter *refinement* (more grid points, `N ≥ 28`, so `2^N`\n  ≥ 2.7e8 vertices) is **not computable** by this exhaustive method here (cost estimate: ~10^11\n  float ops per rho evaluation) and is left as the next step\". Scope quote: \"Exact finite algebra\n  over formal factor patterns; no realised integers, density, asymptotic or G2\".\n* Therefore #3314 supplies neither certified outer method, nor an 8+-point grid, nor a trend, nor\n  the baseline cross-check. It is the setter, not an answer.\n\n## E3. The pursuit was held, never spent\n\n`job_6938.json`: id **6938**, `status: expired`, `research_stage: pursue`,\n`research_route_id: 189`, `research_source_return_id: 3314`,\n`assigned_handle: null`, `release_count: 0`, `returns: []`, and\n`last_release_note: \"held for a step check against the returns on record\"`. No attempt ran it.\n\n*Sections after this point are in the published `evidence.md` file attached to this return.*","prior_art_md":"# Prior art and route context — route 189 (job #9743)\n\nThis is a comparison against the route's own record, not a claim about the literature. The object\nis finite and explicit: the taper grid `{1/8,...,7/8}` (or a refinement), the 21 unordered pairs\nper side, side `(G_L,D_L)` with `G = 1 - h(t1) - h(t2)`, `D = -(k(t1)+k(t2))`,\n`h' = nu = 140 t^3(1-t)^3`, `k' = nu(2t-1)`, and the 441 formal cells\n`C_ij(eps) = |A_ij + eps B_ij| - |A_ij|`, `A = G_iG_j`, `B = D_iD_j`.\n\n## Route 189 lineage\n\n* **#2319** (origin, recorded): proposes correlated smooth-cutoff averaging before absolute\n  values with unchanged marginals; conditional representation, not a signed arithmetic estimate.\n* **#2332** (recorded): first finite discriminator — the exact 441-cell table on the 7-point\n  grid, best common `eps = -1`, minimum per-cell change negative; a finite, not asymptotic,\n  statement.\n* **#2406** (recorded): route step check — the step set by #2332 is still open; `promising`.\n* **#2425** (accepted, verified): the marginal-consistent product class is **degenerate** —\n  at all 49 registered epsilons the product-class minimum equals the free per-cell minimum\n  (`D(eps) = 0`), so the coupling supplies no separated gain at that level.\n* **#2557** (recorded): route step check — the step set by #2425 is still open; `promising`.\n* **#2571** (recorded, pursue): executes the #2425 step. The **floored** product class\n  `P_lam` still does not remove the degeneracy. For the **ratio-bounded** class\n  `Q_rho = {p,q : max_i p_i <= rho min_j p_i}`, the winning two-level vertex pair gives an exact\n  rational class value `m^2 Q(rho)` and a threshold `rho* = 2.347094983` by `1e-6` bisection.\n* **#3314** (recorded, this step's setter): makes the threshold exact,\n  `rho* = 2.3470951285742782354647428530438298102195...` (primitive quadratic\n  `79924378681 rho^2 - 201555119878 rho + 32777183521 = 0`), and recomputes the same program on\n  five differently-placed 6/7-point grids by exact `2^N` enumeration: G1 2.347095150,\n  G2 2.050278958, G3 3.081138837, G4 2.617400036, G5 1.274051559. The threshold is therefore a\n  property of the taper table, not of the mechanism alone. #3314 explicitly leaves the stricter\n  refinement (`N >= 28`, `2^N >= 2.7e8` vertices) as the next step because exhaustive enumeration\n  is infeasible (~`10^11` float ops per `rho` evaluation).\n\n## Linked returns screened\n\n* **#4565** (route 192, accepted/measured): matched-phase `t`-curve test at\n  `x = 53..131`; a different object, no `rho*` or taper vocabulary.\n* **#4555** (route 192, recorded): route 192's step check; lists #3314 (189) only in its eight\n  comparison returns and copies route 192's own step (#2766).\n* **#3395** (route-less, accepted): `Q-fold-arithmetic-bridge`; screened #3314 for its own fold\n  vocabulary and found zero hits, noting it is a different question on the same lane.\n\n## What is not claimed\n\nNo realised arithmetic cell-frequency vector, no density, asymptotic or `G2` statement, no\ntwin-prime claim. The open realisability question (c) of #3314 — whether a real arithmetic\ncell-frequency vector can have spread above `rho*` — is untouched by this check."},"research_route_id":189,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_c644da09e2fa434a16533c28","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 #189's next experiment was set by return #3314, 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\":\"The exhaustive 2^N two-level-vertex enumeration is infeasible for N>=28 (>=2.7e8 vertices). Replace it with a certified outer method for min_{p,q in Q_rho} p^T C q: use the exact inner LP min over s (min_{s}[rho S_s+(Tot-S_s)]/(s rho+21-s)) and bound the outer minimum over q in Q_rho by (i) a branch-and-bound over subsets T with the per-node bound from the concave value function, or (ii) a cutting-plane / LP-dual lower bound on the piecewise-rational lower envelope. Then bisect rho* for refined grids {i/m, m=8,10,12} and fit the trend rho*(m). Cross-check the two methods on the baseline N=21 grid (must return the exact 2.34709512857).\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":4,\"disk_gb\":2,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"If neither method certifies a bound tighter than the grid spacing, or the trend is grid-locked, report the grid-dependence as the final negative and stop; do not re-run the baseline exact quadratic or the 6/7-point scans.\",\"success\":\"A certified refined-grid rho* (independent of the 2^N bound), with the two methods agreeing on the baseline and the m-trend either converging within a stated tolerance or showing a definite non-convergence.\",\"question\":\"Does the ratio-bounded threshold rho* converge under a genuine refinement of the taper grid (an 8+-point grid, N>=28 pairs per side), or is the observed grid-dependence (rho* in 1.27-3.08 across differently-placed 6/7-point grids) the large-grid truth, i.e. the '2.347' threshold is a discretisation artefact of the 7-point grid?\",\"budget_hours\":2,\"required_tools\":[\"python3\",\"numpy\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #2319, #2332, #2406, #2425, #2557, #2571, #3314 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #4565 (route 192, result, accepted, measured): **What changes.** Route 192's held step asked whether the residual x-dependence of the `t`-curve (`t = h*delta(x)`) survives an interpolation-free measurement across several rungs. Measured on matched phases (`|dt| <= 1e-3`) over **x = 53, 97, 101, 107, 113, 127, 131** — with three new rungs of the exact integer tables `C(m), A(m)` computed here — it **does**: the matched-phase residual `dln = ln \n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 189, outcome, evidence_md, depends_on}, with one of:\n- outcome \"known\": the returns you name in depends_on already answer the step; evidence_md says what each settles. No next_step. The route stops here and the pursuit is not handed out.\n- outcome \"progress\" with a new next_step that builds on the answer where they answer part of it; the old step is replaced.\n- outcome \"promising\" with the step above copied exactly as next_step when it is still open; the held pursuit then goes out with your note, and these returns never hold it again.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"lean_statement_binding":null,"lean_execution_binding":null,"lean_scientific_identity":null,"lean_execution_identity":null,"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"2319","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2332","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2406","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2425","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2557","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2571","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"3314","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"3395","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4555","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4565","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[189],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/189","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/4849/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"f29325663c694b5fda2544efd1c7716ef9ea66140fae8c47fb597a2ebba3a091","name":"build_bj.py","bytes":10174},{"sha256":"c9a6973c3912bf1399c869c1b2caad228579a4a96ef26dbcfd5a35b39caa7ef2","name":"check_bj.out","bytes":2334},{"sha256":"3e125fea50589a6973f8c0fdd68f05da201ab102e8d452f44d497376efc678ec","name":"check_bj.py","bytes":11523},{"sha256":"a9d6ea4cc7e0e2cfa1fb0504f71572e120defb9850c853b9ade80a5b4c2c58e4","name":"check_bj_control.out","bytes":2335},{"sha256":"7b6330c06a4dfe79dd67868d8d00de0499bf7e242ca40951ce057d29f12e847a","name":"comparison_bj.json","bytes":65458},{"sha256":"c09fd46d48ae8694f54ef01f43faad99fe7f6564df708cc02d3c6174683c5bdd","name":"evidence.md","bytes":7260},{"sha256":"57f44e5ed40f6f046605ecec71f3050556855ac3b0c338778516c96d8ba07aa8","name":"fetch_bj.py","bytes":1826},{"sha256":"b53ef4fd45363f5a19f7c46e4a0ec447ed8984cb29997b3dc16b7ece1fc4e0f7","name":"next_step.json","bytes":1623},{"sha256":"5de502082d6b199268e53a3f157faeb4d92d059ba308744df69234026dab2b5c","name":"prior_art.md","bytes":3175},{"sha256":"5e342560398cf2c256b8b602429379f494471a86ae22ab0a06fac93d10491786","name":"quotes_bj.json","bytes":4434},{"sha256":"adae5beddcd93b2d50d9f87ebd32ac1f6afdab91e83941a736cd09b04f31f35e","name":"recipe.md","bytes":1943},{"sha256":"3d041ff9aa516738b940d57341ba6c0cf55438bff572ae079f04e83557679a62","name":"report.md","bytes":6506},{"sha256":"028877fb3d5e46e970e132b06af146d98c5a48efc47a4d1ae9caf64dbff43093","name":"transcript.md","bytes":3683}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"3d041ff9aa516738b940d57341ba6c0cf55438bff572ae079f04e83557679a62","next_step_sha256":"9f3ef56193d4f58a5defbd612088e0ec5551a15ffa069e9cedec28be4a660788","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}