{"id":5212,"job_id":10294,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #10294 (explore / first_look, route 276) -- step check before pursuit: the step is **still open**, and the record says so itself\n\n**Answer one line.** No return on the record reports the step's statistic: nobody has fitted the\nblock slopes of `ln rms(q)` with `q = E/sqrt(Xmain)`, and the accepted review of the setter\n(**#1362**) explicitly leaves \"density-normalised residual testing\" open and says the acceptance\n\"does not establish ... the proposed dimensionless normalisation\". Route **276** has had no new\nreturn since the setter (**last_return_id \"3769\"**, `updated_at` equal to #3769's own creation\ntimestamp), and all eight returns that cite #3725/#3769 are applicability screenings, one audit and\none comment-only repair. **Outcome: `promising`** -- the step is copied **object-exactly**\n(canonical sha256 of the `next_step` object `aecf5aa34504e7e4f9ecd510a076deded4174921618e7bf6fdaf080b84226871`) as the route's next step, with two\nreading defects registered in advance (S5) that a pursuit must not walk into.\n\n**No science is claimed, and no experiment was run.** `E` was never formed; the only fresh\nmeasurement here is a *design* diagnostic on the published anchor sheet (S5), which fits no residual.\n\n---\n\n## 1. What was asked\n\nJob #10294 is a step check, not the experiment: decide whether the returns already on record answer\nthe step set by #3769 (waiting since 2026-10-14) before a pursuit is spent on it. The step asks, in\nfour clauses: (a) form `q = E/sqrt(Xmain)` per anchor from the pinned sheet of #3725\n(sha `7d1e6011...`, no new census); (b) fit `ln rms(q)` against `ln W` in the record's 10-bin\npipeline on the three pre-registered Q-blocks (`Q<=3163`, `3164..10007`, `>10007`), with each slope\nand its OLS s.e.; (c) run the identical fit on the two known-exponent controls of #7607, 400\nreplicates, to get the **null spread** of the block slopes of `ln rms(q)`; (d) fit `ln rms(E)` on\n`(ln W, ln ln h)` over all items and report the partial exponent on `ln W`. Acceptance, fixed in\nadvance: the dimensionless coordinate is right only if all three block slopes **and** the partial\n`ln W` exponent are within 2 combined s.e. of zero, and the controls have the same null spread.\n\n## 2. The route has not moved (route record, read live)\n\n| field | value |\n|---|---|\n| `GET /research-routes/276` `state` / `revision` | `active` / **2** |\n| `last_return_id` | **\"3769\"** (a string) |\n| `updated_at` | `2026-10-14T18:43:43.998Z` = **#3769's own `created_at`** |\n| `basis` | `[3725 (accepted, measured), 3769 (accepted, measured)]` |\n| jobs | `#7607` accepted (`first_look`), `#7680` **expired** (`pursue`), `#10294` assigned (this check) |\n| `origin_return_id` | `3725` |\n\nSo the held pursuit `#7680` expired with the step unspent, and nothing has been filed on the route\nin the seven days since. The route's own `next_step` **is** the step (S7).\n\n## 3. The citation closure, read in full\n\nEight returns cite #3725 or #3769; every one was fetched and read (`cites_bn.json` pins each by\nserved hash). What each does:\n\n| return | type / status | what it actually does | does it answer any clause? |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| #3737 | explore, recorded (screens #3725) | applicability screening; matrix only | no |\n| #3785 | explore, recorded (screens #3769) | screening; states \"no experiment or recomputation was done\" | no |\n| #3799 | **audit**, accepted | repairs the served staging note's bias interpretation (\"truth 0.5\", universal -0.02 removed); no fit | no (it corrects the note, not the step) |\n| #3812 | **audit**, accepted | comment-only repair of the note's producer `attack-roughpair-error-01.js` | no |\n| #3819 | explore, recorded | re-screening after finding 104619 changed; matrix reused unchanged | no |\n| #3828 | explore, recorded | re-screening after finding 104620 changed | no |\n| #3891 | explore, recorded | re-screening after artifact list changed; hash-checked 25 files, no recomputation | no |\n| #3929 | explore, recorded (route 199 zone tails) | cites #3769 among five returns; its report **never mentions** #3769 (structural cite only) | no |\n\nNone of the eight contains the step's statistic (no `ln rms(q)`, no `q = E/sqrt(...)`, no block-slope\nof `q`). The same negative holds on the project index: of 288 routes, the only ones whose\ncontribution/next-step text touches this object (rough-pair census error) are **276** itself, 82\n(fold-kill exchangeability), 187 and 194 (gap-tail objects), 211 and 275 (Selberg / class-minimum\nbounds on the same census) -- and none of them measures a density-corrected residual.\n\n## 4. What the setter's numbers do and do not settle\n\n#3769 measured, on the extended set (3,367 items, blocks 411/783/2171), block slopes of\n`ln rms(E)` of **0.3256 ± 0.0530 / 0.4278 ± 0.0302 / 0.4824 ± 0.0184** at `u=3` and\n**0.3035 ± 0.0474 / 0.5080 ± 0.0273 / 0.4973 ± 0.0125** at `u*`, failing its own 2-s.e. rule, and it\nran the controls beside every slope. Those numbers **settle the drift in the `W` coordinate** and\nmust not be recomputed. They do **not** settle the step, for a reason visible in the same table:\n\n- The control it used as the \"density-corrected\" reference, a pure `sqrt(Xmain)` scale, has block\n  means **0.427 / 0.475 / 0.481** (`u=3`) and **0.437 / 0.472 / 0.480** (`u*`); i.e. its own A-C drift\n  is **-0.054 / -0.043**, against the measured **-0.157 / -0.194**. Reading those two published rows\n  subtractively (arithmetic, not a measurement) leaves roughly **two thirds** of the drift\n  unaccounted for by the scale, which is exactly the open question -- so the answer is **not**\n  pre-determined by the setter's table.\n- Conversely, in the coordinate the step asks for, the `sqrt(Xmain)` control is `z` itself, i.e. its\n  `q`-exponent is **exactly 0** by construction. That is what makes clause (c) well posed at all --\n  and it is also the trap in clause (c) (S5, defect 1).\n\nThe trusted review #1362 is the record's own statement that the step was never run: the acceptance\n\"does not establish ... density causation, **the proposed dimensionless normalisation**\"; \"A\nsqrt(Xmain) synthetic law showing some similar drift does not identify density as the cause of the\nactual E drift; **density-normalised residual testing remains open**\"; and \"Any claim that density\nalone explains the residual law needs **the separately proposed normalised-residual evidence**\".\nThat separately proposed evidence is this step.\n\n## 5. Two reading defects to register before the pursuit (measured on the published sheet)\n\nThe step is sound in its main line, but two clauses can be read into a wrong verdict if the pursuit\ndoes not register the design in advance. Both come from one licence check on the pinned sheet\n(`served/anchors_cj.tsv`, sha256 `7d1e6011...`, 3,398 rows -- byte-exact; `design_bn.py` /\n`design_bn.out`, no `E`, no residual fit):\n\nItem set reproduced from the sheet: `W >= 1000` and `K(u=3) >= 3` gives **3,367 items**, blocks\n**413 / 783 / 2171**. #3769 prints 411 / 783 / 2171; the two extra are `Q = 83`, `89`, exactly the\n\"two additional anchors outside these blocks\" that review #1362 names -- so the geometry is\nreproduced from published rows and the pursuit can trust its own item set.\n\n| clause-(d) design | n | corr(`ln W`, `ln ln h`) | VIF | `ln W` span | `ln ln h` span |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| all items (what (d) prescribes) | 3367 | **+0.828** | **3.19** | 6.94..15.33 | 2.18..3.03 |\n| block A `Q<=3163` | 413 | +0.773 | 2.49 | 6.94..12.03 | 2.18..2.78 |\n| block B `3164..10007` | 783 | +0.452 | 1.26 | 9.45..13.44 | **2.78..2.91** |\n| block C `>10007` | 2171 | +0.422 | 1.22 | 10.60..15.33 | **2.91..3.03** |\n\n1. **Clause (c): the control's \"known exponent\" is its `q`-exponent, not its `W`-exponent.** The\n   record's \"truth 0.5\" for the `sqrt(Xmain)` control was withdrawn by review #1362 and audit #3799\n   (deterministic `W`-slope 0.4216 on the extended geometry, 0.4202/0.4247 on the original one). In\n   the `q` coordinate the same control has exponent **0**, while the `W^0.5` control has q-exponent\n   `0.5 - slope(sqrt(Xmain))`, i.e. about **+0.07 / +0.03 / +0.02** by block at `u=3`. A pursuit that\n   compares the `W^0.5` control's q-slope against zero would read a correct estimator as a failure.\n   Clause (c) must quote each control's **q-exponent per block** (deterministic, from the control's\n   own construction) and compare the measured `q`-slopes against **those**, not against 0.\n2. **Clause (d) is a between-block contrast, not a within-block `W`-effect.** Pooled, the two\n   regressors are collinear (r = +0.83, VIF 3.19, scaled condition number 92), and inside blocks B\n   and C `ln ln h` spans only **0.13 and 0.12**. So a pooled \"partial exponent on `ln W`\" is mostly\n   the same contrast as the block split it is meant to cross-check; it cannot, by itself, show a\n   within-block `W`-dependence. It should be reported **per block as well as pooled**, with the\n   correlation and VIF beside it -- otherwise clause (d)'s \"within 2 s.e. of 0\" is a weaker test than\n   the step intends, and a null there is not evidence that `q` is drift-free.\n\nNeither defect changes the step's text; both are reading conditions for the pursuit. The step is\ncheap (0.1 CPU-h, pinned sheet, no census), has a decisive either-way clause, and the recorded\nobligation is untouched -- so **one bounded next experiment is justified**.\n\n## 6. What is not claimed, and the limits of the negative\n\n- **Nothing is measured about the object.** No `E`, no `q`, no slope is formed here; §4 is a reading\n  of published rows and §5 is a design diagnostic on the published covariates.\n- **The negative is search-bounded.** There is no full-text search endpoint in the served API. I read\n  the route record, the full citation closure of #3725/#3769 (8 returns), the deciding review #1362,\n  the served note's row `Q-roughpair-error` (sha `d5b0d68c...`) and the 288-route index\n  (titles/contribution/next-step). I did **not** read all ~950 returns' full text, so \"no return\n  computes the q-fit\" is a claim about those searches, not a proof of absence -- but it is the same\n  reading the trusted review records.\n- **The step is not reworded or tightened.** It is copied object-exactly; a \"better\" step would be\n  new work, not a step check.\n- **No verdict on the record's `0.40` gap, on Z2, or on any exponent.** Route 276 is a\n  measurement-law route and this return only decides whether its held experiment is still the right\n  one.\n\n## 7. Verdict and the exact copy\n\n`research: {route_id: 276, outcome: \"promising\", depends_on: [3769]}` with the step as `next_step`,\ncanonical sha256 of `json.dumps(step, sort_keys=True, separators=(\",\",\":\"))` =\n**`aecf5aa34504e7e4f9ecd510a076deded4174921618e7bf6fdaf080b84226871`**, which equals\n#3769's own recorded `next_step_sha256` and (checked programmatically) the step printed in this\nassignment's brief and the route's live `next_step`. The held pursuit `#7680` goes out with this note.\n\nBounds: 1 CPU, <1 GB RAM, ~0.02 CPU-h (GET/POST plus a 0.1 s design script and the checker); no\ncensus, no experiment. `cpu_hours` is measured wall time; usage is **unmeasured** and declared as\nsuch. Files: this report, `evidence_bn.md`, `prior_art_bn.md`, `next_step_bn.json`, `cites_bn.json`,\n`design_bn.py`/`.out`, `check_bn.py`/`.out`, `CORRUPTIONS_bn.out`, and the re-run path\n`fetch_bn.py` + `repro_bn.sh`.\n\n**Reproduce (the checker is re-runnable from the public record).**\n```\nsh repro_bn.sh            # rebuilds served/ from GETs, re-runs design_bn.py, check_bn.py (29 checks)\n                          # and all six corruptions; nothing in it needs this run's private files\n```\n`fetch_bn.py --all` rebuilds the snapshots byte-identically from the live API (verified: the served\nbytes did not change on re-fetch), so a reviewer needs only the department tool path and a credential.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.02,"hashes":{"check_bn.py":"ddbe0f271a62e667278ea2702cadde4a90169ffa6d7272bf52ed9bfd258fe852","fetch_bn.py":"0dc748d4d3b7dab413ab19f2ed6e3fbe5117057c61c50051e955e36135fc4e74","repro_bn.sh":"cc8966fb14d7cff7df01b1ad58c26dfdc19164af15bbe391d78ef4da89ce88c8","check_bn.out":"2d9e36c406a3a5447af83db5ca0fa3ad82e01d116e53518c3d3bfbf77731428d","design_bn.py":"5b624e3496ff1e1bbaaa08926ce585b0ca607c730a760f6e16da567da5118fc9","report_bn.md":"090b13d3656ea049a9f3b66b700567b34e33c79697f39834e6fc7a163dfe9041","cites_bn.json":"724a5c57aaa186cf417069618100f5ea6bb9fb284e060b47c0f7d5d2e1695b5d","design_bn.out":"a14ead29ab006757ba103cb65b021e236404170893be05976990e7c50b0eed6f","evidence_bn.md":"c44476e7483bf2e205fbb60d2b43ced52f877190226a56d42812046d1bbf5c3a","prior_art_bn.md":"5f0422c49f7e4539c71436e4b592a4a94d74ad88ba7bfd719e20e34cb5271f33","transcript_bn.md":"8ad69c2bc9a8b83096b06b5a1208feda4be6f0e9662a7e460242c488aef0cca6","next_step_bn.json":"026a2bdcb7e6ab3f27ee7ab4a81616ff4df1c61c974134932413ce1bfb47ba81","CORRUPTIONS_bn.out":"b4ad7abd88adcae5f5e7e99c2c85791fdb779d45245e4c27c4a36f2e5d953b12"},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-21T08:50:41.216Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[3725,3769,3737,3785,3799,3812,3819,3828,3891,3929],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"codebuff/freebuff CLI keeps no per-turn token record for this session and its chat log carries no usage fields; the model binding is deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash with thinking level unmeasured","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":"2026-10-21T08:51:04.696Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":276,"next_step":{"method":"Reuse the pinned anchor sheet of #3725 (sha 7d1e6011..., no new census) and this return's E. Fix the estimator and the acceptance rule before looking at the numbers. (a) Per anchor form q = E / sqrt(Xmain) using the record's own corrected main term. (b) Fit ln rms(q) against ln W by the record's own pipeline (10 equal-width ln W bins, >= 8 items per bin, OLS on bin centres) on each of the three disjoint Q-blocks already pre-registered here (Q <= 3163, 3164 <= Q <= 10007, Q > 10007), reporting each slope with its OLS standard error; also report the local 3- and 5-bin slopes. (c) Run the identical fit on the same known-exponent control used by #7607 (i in {W^0.5, sqrt(Xmain)} item scales), 400 replicates, so the null spread of the block slopes of ln rms(q) is known: the falsifier must be compared against that null, not against 0. (d) State the two-coordinate alternative explicitly: also fit ln rms(E) on (ln W, ln ln h) as a two-regressor OLS over all items and report the partial exponent on ln W with its standard error, so a residual W-effect can be read off directly. Report every slope with its control slope beside it. Acceptance, fixed in advance: the dimensionless coordinate is the right one only if all three block slopes of ln rms(q) and the partial exponent on ln W agree with zero within 2 combined standard errors, and if the same statistic on the controls has the same null spread.","compute":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.1},"failure":"The attempt fails if it quotes any slope of ln rms(q) without the control's own slope and the control's null spread beside it, or if it reports a block disagreement as a finding without showing the same statistic on known-exponent synthetic data of the same geometry. It also fails if it re-derives the census instead of reusing the pinned sheet, or if it reports an exponent in W as though W were an unconfounded regressor. A null that is calibrated by an analytic standard error alone, with no Monte-Carlo null over the real geometry, does not settle the question.","success":"A resolved verdict either way, in the density-corrected coordinate (u or s = u*lnW/lnh), which is what a proof-side statement can use. If ln rms(q) has no block drift (all three block slopes and the partial ln W exponent within 2 combined s.e. of 0, against a control-calibrated null), then the object obeys one scale law, the entire apparent exponent drift is the W-versus-depth confound, and the record's exponent column is restated once in that coordinate with the gap quoted as a single number. If it does drift, the object has a second, W-dependent component beyond the Poisson scale, and the drift is reported per block with the control beside it.","question":"This return shows the fitted exponent of rms(E) in W is a range summary because W is confounded with the sieve depth over Q <= 31607, and that a single law at the Poisson scale rms(E) ~ sqrt(Xmain) reproduces the direction and part of that drift. The open question it leaves: does the object follow a single law in the density-corrected coordinate? Specifically, is the dimensionless ratio q = E / sqrt(Xmain) free of any W-drift, so that all of the measured drift is the coordinate's and none is the object's?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":["python3"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[3769],"evidence_md":"**What this settles.** The step set by #3769 is **still open**: no return on the record forms\n`q = E/sqrt(Xmain)` or fits `ln rms(q)` against `ln W`, on any block, with or without a control null.\n\n**#3769 (the setter, accepted/measured: review #1362).** It settles the drift in the `W` coordinate\non the pinned #3725 sheet: block slopes of `ln rms(E)` 0.3256±0.0530 / 0.4278±0.0302 / 0.4824±0.0184\nat `u=3` and 0.3035±0.0474 / 0.5080±0.0273 / 0.4973±0.0125 at `u*` (blocks A/B/C, Q<=3163,\n3164..10007, >10007), failing its own 2-s.e. rule; and the control block means 0.427/0.475/0.481\n(`u=3`), 0.437/0.472/0.480 (`u*`). Those must not be recomputed. It does **not** settle the step: the\nsame table shows the scale's own A-C drift is -0.054/-0.043 against the measured -0.157/-0.194, so\nmost of the drift is unexplained by the coordinate -- which is the open question. Review **#1362**\nrecords the same gap in words: the acceptance \"does not establish ... the proposed dimensionless\nnormalisation\" and \"density-normalised residual testing remains open\", needing \"the separately\nproposed normalised-residual evidence\" (this step).\n\n**The eight returns that cite #3725/#3769, all read, none answers any clause.** #3737, #3785, #3819,\n#3828, #3891 are applicability screenings (\"no experiment or recomputation was done\"); #3799 is an\naccepted audit of the staging note's bias wording; #3812 an accepted comment-only repair of the note's\nproducer; #3929 is route-199 zone-tail work that cites #3769 structurally (its report never mentions\nit). None contains `ln rms(q)` or a block slope of `q`.\n\n**The route moved nowhere.** `GET /research-routes/276`: `state` active, revision 2,\n`last_return_id \"3769\"`, `updated_at 2026-10-14T18:43:43.998Z` = #3769's own creation time; jobs\n#7607 accepted, #7680 (pursue) expired, #10294 (this check) assigned. The index of all 288 routes has\nno other route measuring a density-corrected residual of this census (only 82, 187, 194, 211, 275\ntouch the object, on different statistics).\n\n**One fresh measurement, of the design only.** From the byte-exact pinned sheet (sha `7d1e6011...`,\n3,398 rows) the item set of #3769 is reproduced as 3,367 items (blocks 413/783/2171; the two extra in\nA are `Q = 83, 89` = review #1362's \"two additional anchors\"). Clause (d)'s two regressors are\ncollinear: corr(`ln W`, `ln ln h`) = **+0.828**, VIF **3.19** pooled, and `ln ln h` spans only 0.13\nand 0.12 inside blocks B and C -- so a pooled partial `ln W` exponent is a between-block contrast,\nnot a within-block `W` effect, and must be reported with the correlation and per block as well.\nClause (c) has the same shape of trap: the `sqrt(Xmain)` control's `q`-exponent is exactly 0 and the\n`W^0.5` control's is 0.5 minus the scale's own block slope (about +0.07/+0.03/+0.02 at `u=3`), not\nthe withdrawn \"truth 0.5\".\n\n**Limits.** No `E`, no `q`, no slope was formed here; the design numbers come from published\ncovariates. No full-text search endpoint exists, so the negative covers the route record, the full\ncitation closure, the review, the served note row and the 288-route index -- not all ~950 returns.\nThe step is copied object-exactly (canonical sha256 `aecf5aa34504e7e4f9ecd510a076deded4174921618e7bf6fdaf080b84226871`), not reworded.","prior_art_md":"**Search record (2026-10-21).** No online query was made by this run: a step check decides what the\nrecord already answers, and the return claims no novelty, so there is nothing for an external search\nto settle. What follows is the local record searched, with the locator for each item.\n\n**The route and its closure (all read live, hashes pinned in `cites_bn.json`).**\n`GET /research-routes/276` (state active, revision 2, `last_return_id \"3769\"`); its two basis returns\n#3725 and #3769 (`GET /return/<id>`); the deciding reviews #1346 (on #3725) and **#1362** (on #3769);\nthe full citation closure of both basis returns: #3737 (screens #3725), #3785, #3799, #3812, #3819,\n#3828, #3891, #3929 (all cite #3769). Statements used: every one of the eight does applicability\nscreening, an audit of the note's bias wording, or a comment-only producer repair, and none reports a\nfitted slope of a density-corrected residual.\n\n**The object's own rows.** The served note `research/history/staging/attack-roughpair-error.md`\n(sha256 `d5b0d68c...`) carrying row `Q-roughpair-error` (status PARTIAL) and its §4–5 exponent table\nplus §8 \"NOT REACHED\" (capture identity, no upper-bound value, `E` not split by side, no prereg,\ndepth-law forecast untouched); the predecessor's pinned anchor sheet `anchors_cj.tsv`\n(sha256 `7d1e6011...`, 3,398 rows, columns Q, Qp, nR, C, T, W, Kstar, X0, K\\*/X\\* at\nu = 2.5, 3.0, 3.5658466222349965, 4.0, 5.0).\n\n**The project index.** `GET /research-routes` (all 288 routes, three pages): the only routes whose\ncontribution or next-step text touches the rough-pair census are 276 (this question), 82 (fold-kill\ntwo-step exchangeability), 187 and 194 (gap-tail objects), 211 (Selberg remainder adapter) and 275\n(omega-truncated class minimum on the same census). None measures a density-corrected residual, and\nnone names `q = E/sqrt(Xmain)`. The lane summary served with the assignment lists the open item as\n\"276#3769 gap0.40/0.47\", i.e. the same step.\n\n**Literature already on the record.** #3769's own `prior_art_md` (job #7607, search date 2026-10-14)\ncovers the log-binning / power-law-exponent estimator literature (White–Enquist–Green 2008;\nVirkar–Clauset 2014; Clauset–Shalizi–Newman 2009) at snippet level. Review #1362 records that this\nliterature is background, not a proof of this estimator's bias. No new external source is used here.\n\n**Known-and-named gap.** Review #1362: \"density-normalised residual testing remains open ... Any\nclaim that density alone explains the residual law needs the separately proposed normalised-residual\nevidence\". That is precisely the step this check leaves standing."},"research_route_id":276,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_36574e44337b3fec47ceb8ac","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 #276's next experiment was set by return #3769, and it has waited since 2026-10-14, and the record may have moved on. 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 the pinned anchor sheet of #3725 (sha 7d1e6011..., no new census) and this return's E. Fix the estimator and the acceptance rule before looking at the numbers. (a) Per anchor form q = E / sqrt(Xmain) using the record's own corrected main term. (b) Fit ln rms(q) against ln W by the record's own pipeline (10 equal-width ln W bins, >= 8 items per bin, OLS on bin centres) on each of the three disjoint Q-blocks already pre-registered here (Q <= 3163, 3164 <= Q <= 10007, Q > 10007), reporting each slope with its OLS standard error; also report the local 3- and 5-bin slopes. (c) Run the identical fit on the same known-exponent control used by #7607 (i in {W^0.5, sqrt(Xmain)} item scales), 400 replicates, so the null spread of the block slopes of ln rms(q) is known: the falsifier must be compared against that null, not against 0. (d) State the two-coordinate alternative explicitly: also fit ln rms(E) on (ln W, ln ln h) as a two-regressor OLS over all items and report the partial exponent on ln W with its standard error, so a residual W-effect can be read off directly. Report every slope with its control slope beside it. Acceptance, fixed in advance: the dimensionless coordinate is the right one only if all three block slopes of ln rms(q) and the partial exponent on ln W agree with zero within 2 combined standard errors, and if the same statistic on the controls has the same null spread.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":1,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0.1},\"failure\":\"The attempt fails if it quotes any slope of ln rms(q) without the control's own slope and the control's null spread beside it, or if it reports a block disagreement as a finding without showing the same statistic on known-exponent synthetic data of the same geometry. It also fails if it re-derives the census instead of reusing the pinned sheet, or if it reports an exponent in W as though W were an unconfounded regressor. A null that is calibrated by an analytic standard error alone, with no Monte-Carlo null over the real geometry, does not settle the question.\",\"success\":\"A resolved verdict either way, in the density-corrected coordinate (u or s = u*lnW/lnh), which is what a proof-side statement can use. If ln rms(q) has no block drift (all three block slopes and the partial ln W exponent within 2 combined s.e. of 0, against a control-calibrated null), then the object obeys one scale law, the entire apparent exponent drift is the W-versus-depth confound, and the record's exponent column is restated once in that coordinate with the gap quoted as a single number. If it does drift, the object has a second, W-dependent component beyond the Poisson scale, and the drift is reported per block with the control beside it.\",\"question\":\"This return shows the fitted exponent of rms(E) in W is a range summary because W is confounded with the sieve depth over Q <= 31607, and that a single law at the Poisson scale rms(E) ~ sqrt(Xmain) reproduces the direction and part of that drift. The open question it leaves: does the object follow a single law in the density-corrected coordinate? Specifically, is the dimensionless ratio q = E / sqrt(Xmain) free of any W-drift, so that all of the measured drift is the coordinate's and none is the object's?\",\"budget_hours\":0.5,\"required_tools\":[\"python3\"],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #3725, #3769 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 276, 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":"3769","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[276],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/276","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5212/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"090b13d3656ea049a9f3b66b700567b34e33c79697f39834e6fc7a163dfe9041","name":"report_bn.md","bytes":11843},{"sha256":"c44476e7483bf2e205fbb60d2b43ced52f877190226a56d42812046d1bbf5c3a","name":"evidence_bn.md","bytes":3271},{"sha256":"5f0422c49f7e4539c71436e4b592a4a94d74ad88ba7bfd719e20e34cb5271f33","name":"prior_art_bn.md","bytes":2645},{"sha256":"026a2bdcb7e6ab3f27ee7ab4a81616ff4df1c61c974134932413ce1bfb47ba81","name":"next_step_bn.json","bytes":3354},{"sha256":"724a5c57aaa186cf417069618100f5ea6bb9fb284e060b47c0f7d5d2e1695b5d","name":"cites_bn.json","bytes":5277},{"sha256":"5b624e3496ff1e1bbaaa08926ce585b0ca607c730a760f6e16da567da5118fc9","name":"design_bn.py","bytes":2542},{"sha256":"a14ead29ab006757ba103cb65b021e236404170893be05976990e7c50b0eed6f","name":"design_bn.out","bytes":569},{"sha256":"ddbe0f271a62e667278ea2702cadde4a90169ffa6d7272bf52ed9bfd258fe852","name":"check_bn.py","bytes":11855},{"sha256":"2d9e36c406a3a5447af83db5ca0fa3ad82e01d116e53518c3d3bfbf77731428d","name":"check_bn.out","bytes":1784},{"sha256":"b4ad7abd88adcae5f5e7e99c2c85791fdb779d45245e4c27c4a36f2e5d953b12","name":"CORRUPTIONS_bn.out","bytes":11080},{"sha256":"8ad69c2bc9a8b83096b06b5a1208feda4be6f0e9662a7e460242c488aef0cca6","name":"transcript_bn.md","bytes":4618},{"sha256":"0dc748d4d3b7dab413ab19f2ed6e3fbe5117057c61c50051e955e36135fc4e74","name":"fetch_bn.py","bytes":4116},{"sha256":"cc8966fb14d7cff7df01b1ad58c26dfdc19164af15bbe391d78ef4da89ce88c8","name":"repro_bn.sh","bytes":608},{"sha256":"22ae37f7a5403cb66a357d43a66fcdfbf4c4f277a2e83cae2f6a32db65bea95b","name":"CORRECTION_bn.md","bytes":4095},{"sha256":"351e25fa2913a020f73876aaaec7bd91f65e868956b78497c9e4ca0f342195b6","name":"check_bn.py","bytes":13738},{"sha256":"b3623c5008f3a8a5f0539ceeb37f836d2dc7aa41bf3e92085954a07c98176303","name":"check_bn.out","bytes":1851},{"sha256":"117e9d1749f6d1e23c878985dad3617a14976fa64b104b85cefa3c9b5822aef7","name":"CORRUPTIONS_bn.out","bytes":11498},{"sha256":"ab2c8a462ab57945486d903b0fe0f1ac943ad02651829f2e86b2b2d6c9c906c1","name":"fetch_bn.py","bytes":4131},{"sha256":"2c3d9233001d507aaa547190d7853b16232542217dd8a9b14bc1a4496cbc2321","name":"route_276_at_check.json","bytes":46471},{"sha256":"f9344a27b9ccd5ff5fdf9aa90996df04428cfcb771d7da755b915a2ebdf37dbe","name":"repro.out","bytes":2275}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"090b13d3656ea049a9f3b66b700567b34e33c79697f39834e6fc7a163dfe9041","next_step_sha256":"aecf5aa34504e7e4f9ecd510a076deded4174921618e7bf6fdaf080b84226871","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}