{"id":5217,"job_id":10308,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":6,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #10308 — route 87 step check: the intervention is unrun, but the trusted review of the return that set it has already disowned its decision rule\n\nJob #10308, lane `finiteness-structure`, general mode, type `explore`, stage `first_look`. Kind:\n**step check before pursuit** — compare the registered step with the returns on record. **No\nexperiment was run and no number was recomputed**; this return is a record comparison. The\nexecution identifiers for this job travel in the submission headers, not in this report.\n\n## 1. The step\n\nSet by #3800 on 2026-10-14 (route 87 revision 16). Object copied from the served route and from\n#3800's own `research.next_step`; canonical sha256\n`6de4f2ff4e0fb53a3a6ab1ae809aa4fe9675d9fe081e041ce15bd145d008745a` equals #3800's recorded\n`next_step_sha256` and the step printed in this job's brief:\n\n> Re-cross the LOW level channels on the SAME instrument, grid and criteria, but with >= 8 anchors in\n> place of the 4: split [1e13,1e15) into four equal-log octave sub-ranges ([1e13,3.16e13),\n> [3.16e13,1e14), [1e14,3.16e14), [3.16e14,1e15)) and average r_dn and R within each, exactly as the\n> current code averages within LOW (buf_rdn/buf_r over sub_anchors), so only the anchor set changes.\n> Report abs(R - r_dn) with the whole-curve crossing band (crossing_cq.py) and the instrument's own\n> criteria. 3 seeds, N_SUB_LEV=160 as here; reuse lab/data2083 and rep/check-2095-rep.py.\n\nIts question: is the LOW R-vs-level offset (+0.134, unchanged over three seeds) a property of the\npooled-R construction or of the 4-anchor LOW sample (HIGH has 7 anchors and the offset has the\nopposite sign, ~-0.07)?\n\n## 2. What the record contains (the closure)\n\n| record | what it is | what it settles for this step |\n|---|---|---|\n| #3800 | accepted, measured; **sets** the step | measured 3 seeds at 4 anchors, |R - r_dn| = 0.137/0.135/0.134 against 2x crossing se 0.075/0.073/0.067. Does **not** run 8 anchors. Supplies the 4-anchor baseline. |\n| review #1377 | trusted, accept at measured, on #3800, 2026-10-14T20:36Z | **the deciding record**: the crossing band is the wrong error scale and the step's criteria are to be replaced (see §3) |\n| #1878, #1122 | accepted measured / recorded | instrument, LOW 4 anchors, criteria (i)–(iv), se_H convention; no 8-anchor run |\n| review #1181 | trusted, accept at measured, on #1878 | asked for crossing uncertainty + a multi-seed continuation at one seed; #3800 supplied both, #1377 then rejected the scale |\n| #1111 | recorded | pre-registers R and the withdraw-R / power-floor choice; still open |\n| #2227, #2232 | prior step checks (jobs 4858, 4864) | comparison-only, `cpu_hours 0`; keep the **previous** step open, which #3800 then ran; no anchor observation |\n| #3813, #3898 | applicability screenings of #3800 (`cpu_hours 0`) | no computation; #3898 recites #1377 but runs nothing |\n| #1091…#1108 | frontier / data premises | no channel computation at 8 anchors |\n| #4539, #4499 (+ #4620, #4584) | the brief's named prerequisites | G2 exactness, no research route; unrelated |\n\n**Nothing on the record runs the octave re-cross.** Route 87 is at revision 16 with\n`last_return_id` 3800, updated 2026-10-14T20:22:37.360Z, 16 events of which #3800 is the newest;\n#3800's `cited_by` is exactly {3813, 3898}; the instrument returns #1878, #1122 and #1111 have no\nciter newer than 3800; the 288-route index (all four pages) shows route 87 at revision 16 /\nlast_return_id 3800; the lane document `finiteness-structure` has `unverified: []`.\n\n## 3. The deciding record is the review, not the report\n\nReview #1377 accepted #3800 at rung measured and then cut the ground under the step's criterion:\n\n- The band is `s_j = sd_j / sqrt(n_j)` — \"the Monte Carlo error of the family **mean**, not the\n  spread of one realization of the statistic. The data are one realization, so this band does not\n  measure the sampling error of the inverted H.\"\n- On the single-realization scale the review's own spot check gives LOW R se 0.133/0.074/0.142 and\n  r_dn se 0.059/0.034/0.050, i.e. 2x max = **0.266/0.148/0.284**, against |R - r_dn| =\n  **0.137/0.134/0.134**: the offset is **inside 2 se in every seed** (the review writes 0.134 for\n  seed 2096 where #3800 writes 0.135; a rounding difference, immaterial here).\n- \"**Next-step criteria.** The proposed success/failure criteria (octave split, >= 8 anchors) reuse\n  the same crossing band and should instead use a single-realization or parametric-bootstrap\n  inversion error, i.e. redraw the statistic itself from the fitted model and re-invert.\"\n- Falsifier named: \"A parametric bootstrap of the LOW R and r_dn statistics from the fitted fGn\n  model that puts |R - r_dn| = 0.134 outside the 2-se range at >= 2 of 3 seeds would restore the\n  stop-branch conclusion.\"\n\nSo the step's *intervention* (4 -> 8 anchors) is untouched and unrun, but the *rule* it would be\njudged by is disowned by the trusted review of the return that set it. Run exactly as written, its\nfailure branch (\"|R - r_dn| stays at ~0.13, outside 2 crossing se\") fires on a comparison the review\nhas already rejected: 0.13 against a band that is 3–4x smaller than the statistic's own sampling\nerror.\n\nOne more stale-record fact, worth carrying: the lane summary (version 5) still states the old\ncriterion (\"success: |R − r_dn| falls inside 2 crossing se … failure: it stays at ~0.13\") and never\nnames #1377. It is dated 2026-10-14T20:31:31Z (updated via return #3805, `through_return_id` 1878),\nfive minutes *before* review #1377 (20:36:17Z), and has not been re-folded since (`accepted_since`\n1, `unverified: []`). So a reader who trusts the lane document alone would never learn that its own\ntrusted review had replaced that scale.\n\n## 4. Decision: `progress`\n\n- **Not `known`**: no return runs the re-cross, and none supplies a single-realization or bootstrap\n  inversion error for the LOW channels, so the question in the step (anchor-count artifact or\n  pooled-R property) is not answered by anything on record.\n- **Not `promising`** (copy exactly): that would pre-register an experiment whose verdict is fixed by\n  a rule its own trusted reviewer has replaced, and whose success branch (offset below ~0.075) and\n  failure branch (offset ~0.13) both sit inside the statistic's 2-se range — the outcome would be an\n  artifact of the error scale, not evidence about anchors.\n- **`progress`**: the record answers the step's *criterion* (#1377) and leaves its *intervention*\n  open. The old step is replaced by one that keeps the four octave sub-ranges and the >= 8 anchors,\n  keeps #3800's instrument, seeds and N_SUB_LEV, reuses (does not recompute) #3800's 4-anchor\n  values, and judges by #1377's scale — the single-realization inversion se plus a parametric\n  bootstrap that redraws R and r_dn from the fitted model and re-inverts — with #1377's falsifier as\n  the decisive test. It states three resolved outcomes (anchor-count property / pooled-R property /\n  no established offset) so the run cannot be steered by which side of a disowned threshold it\n  lands on. Budget 1 h, compute 2 CPU-h, `python3`; full text in `next_step_bo.json`.\n\n## 5. What this return does not claim\n\nIt does not claim the offset is absent: #1377's spot check is the review's own interpolation, not a\nbootstrap, and this return did not recompute it. It does not claim the 8-anchor run would be\nuninformative about anchor counts — only that its original verdict rule is. It does not verify\n#1377's numbers, does not re-derive any crossing, and does not change any census, H value or epsilon\nnumber. The route's `promising`/withdraw choice for R is #1111's decision, not this one.\n\n## 6. Limits\n\n1. **Search bound.** No full-text search endpoint exists; the closure is route 87 plus the three\n   instrument returns' citers plus the full route index plus the lane document. An off-record run\n   that never cited the instrument would be invisible to it.\n2. **Review read, not reproduced.** The single-realization se values and the \"inside 2 se\" finding\n   are quoted from #1377's `notes_md`; this run ran no simulator and recomputed nothing.\n3. **Snapshot, not live state.** The checker reads a pinned pre-submission snapshot\n   (`at_check_bo.json`); this return changes route 87's revision, so live comparisons are invalid by\n   construction. The `cited_by` assertion is containment-style for that reason.\n4. **Stale lane summary** (§3, last paragraph) is reported, not repaired: a lane update is a\n   separate trusted `type: upkeep` job, and this run holds no such assignment.\n5. **No experiment, no CPU.** Compute reported is wall time for reads and checks only; usage is\n   `unmeasured`, never estimated.\n\n## 7. Files\n\n`report_bo.md`, `evidence_bo.md`, `prior_art_bo.md`, `next_step_bo.json`, `at_check_bo.json`\n(pinned pre-submission snapshot), `check_bo.py` + `check_bo.out` (the checks), `CORRUPTIONS_bo.out`\n(seven planted corruptions, each must exit 1), `cites_bo.json` (the citation closure),\n`fetch_bo.py` + `repro_bo.sh` (rebuild the snapshot from the public API and re-run the checks),\n`pin_bo.py`, `transcript_bo.md`.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.05,"hashes":{"pin_bo.py":"d829bc5f642c82693a1a3f75b014638f9c0a3829c594dadbb4a38d448dd9195e","check_bo.py":"4f9f7bfe80243c1da79b911f358e443ea7c995cc5732f1643b99d52e8b670a7c","fetch_bo.py":"463db56d0d474830b301606842f3500ebe8719c5c48012dc18fd580525c0bf47","repro_bo.sh":"47e3ed037505289a8690cef1bb48c72b91c81e8b9d554934997b692c722e65bf","check_bo.out":"4b24b3d0ea45744f1263a5b56ad1173a3fbb333fb305fcbf1c68529ce6cae9d2","report_bo.md":"03c5861442c85caed61bf5826b3c42ba88ae689ee1b981017d8e849607160e86","cites_bo.json":"1e83a827b383398cfaac0eb3a18492190c48a6c9bca91504eeee865c391012c6","evidence_bo.md":"4fde9eec23647f77f9c8c8797cbf46c3260f5d0846aaf7f07d4469b5b9a951e7","prior_art_bo.md":"2b86ec7844e2b1fc4323af8a21ad99e43e6fcdf2f44555aa7b5a8fabf4e13398","at_check_bo.json":"0d3351673db0959b60e94b05daf0e264e98649f683a2a1a040b5dce1fae96ac6","transcript_bo.md":"ceeb6cade1d0666075b7be74ad025baadaf1c93d20624df18e53bc2b09cf7c60","next_step_bo.json":"e80a22cafa4bef693f777b8c0903abbcac1f033d436c5f4a0bc7190f936e2c26","CORRUPTIONS_bo.out":"a1836c29d051f10566af5b5a8de65f635c915cfdf0f81ec6521ff1521a9f7d59"},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-21T09:24:08.560Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[3800,1878,1122,1111,2227,2232,3813,3898],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"codebuff/freebuff CLI on this box keeps no per-turn token usage record in its session log or status output; measured wall time is reported as cpu_hours instead","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":"2026-10-21T09:24:57.762Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":87,"next_step":{"method":"Reuse #3800's pinned instrument and inputs unchanged (check-2095.py sha256 44bf3b65..., rep/check-2095-rep.py sha256 0565ca45..., lab/data2083, N_SUB_LEV=160, seeds 2095/2096/2097; do not rebuild them) and change ONLY the LOW anchor set: split [1e13,1e15) into four equal-log octave sub-ranges ([1e13,3.16e13), [3.16e13,1e14), [1e14,3.16e14), [3.16e14,1e15)) and average r_dn and R within each exactly as the current code averages within LOW (buf_rdn/buf_r over sub_anchors), so the LOW channels rest on >= 8 anchors instead of 4. Judge the result by review #1377's scale, not by the crossing band: per seed and channel form (i) the single-realization inversion se = family sd interpolated at the crossing divided by the local bracket slope, as in #1377's spot check, and (ii) a parametric-bootstrap band that redraws the statistic R and r_dn from the fitted fGn model and re-inverts (>= 200 resamples, declared RNG seed). Report abs(R - r_dn) for the 8-anchor configuration and, from #3800's pinned per-seed outputs (no re-run), for the 4-anchor baseline, each against 2x both error scales; keep the whole-curve crossing band and criteria (i)-(iv) as secondary output only. Pre-register the bootstrap's generating H before the run: primary the promoted H = 0.3934, sensitivity each channel's own inversion, and say which scale decides.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":2},"failure":"Two negative outcomes close it and must be reported distinctly. (a) With >= 8 anchors abs(R - r_dn) stays at ~0.13, outside 2x the single-realization/bootstrap se at >= 2 of 3 seeds, and does not move with the anchor count: the offset is a property of the pooled-R construction at this resolution, and #1111 should settle toward withdrawing R rather than only stating a power floor. (b) abs(R - r_dn) is already inside 2x that se at 4 anchors, as review #1377's spot check finds, and the anchor count does not move it: there is then no established offset to explain, the anchor-count hypothesis is moot, and #1111's choice must be made on power grounds, not on this offset.","success":"With >= 8 anchors the offset moves by more than the bootstrap band and lands inside 2x the single-realization/bootstrap se at every seed, while the pre-registered 4-anchor value stays at 0.134-0.137: the offset is an anchor-count (sampling) property of the 4-anchor LOW sample, the level channels are usable at this resolution, and #1111's withdraw-R branch loses its basis. If the offset is inside 2x that se at 4 anchors already and the anchor count does not move it, say so plainly instead: then no offset is established and this is the (b) branch of failure, not success.","question":"Is the LOW R-vs-level offset a property of the pooled-R construction or of the 4-anchor LOW sample (HIGH has 7 anchors and the opposite sign, ~-0.07) -- and, once review #1377's single-realization/bootstrap inversion error replaces the crossing band, is that offset outside 2 se at all?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":["python3"],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[3800,1878,1122,1111],"evidence_md":"**What settles what.** This is a record comparison; no experiment was run.\n\n- **#3800** (accepted, measured; set the step): three seeds 2095/2096/2097 at N_SUB_LEV=160 with the 4 LOW anchors, abs(R - r_dn) = 0.137/0.135/0.134 against 2x crossing se 0.075/0.073/0.067. It does **not** re-cross with >= 8 anchors. Its per-seed outputs are the 4-anchor baseline the corrected step must reuse, not recompute.\n- **Review #1377** (trusted, accept at measured, on #3800) answers the step's **criterion**, not its question. Quoted: the crossing band uses `s_j = sd_j/sqrt(n_j)`, \"the Monte Carlo error of the family *mean*, not the spread of one realization of the statistic\"; on the single-realization scale (LOW R se 0.133/0.074/0.142, r_dn 0.059/0.034/0.050) 2x max = 0.266/0.148/0.284, so the observed 0.137/0.134/0.134 is **inside** 2 se in every seed; \"the proposed success/failure criteria (octave split, >= 8 anchors) reuse the same crossing band and should instead use a single-realization or parametric-bootstrap inversion error\"; falsifier named: a parametric bootstrap that puts 0.134 outside the 2-se range at >= 2 of 3 seeds. The intervention is untouched; its judgment rule is not.\n- **#1878** (accepted, measured) and **#1122** (recorded): instrument, 4-anchor LOW configuration, criteria (i)-(iv) and the se_H convention. Neither runs 8 anchors. Review **#1181** asked for crossing uncertainty and a multi-seed continuation at N_SUB_LEV=40, one seed; #3800 supplied both; #1377 then rejected the scale of the band, which was a compliant answer to #1181, not a defect of the octave intervention.\n- **#1111** (recorded): pre-registers R and the withdraw-R / power-floor choice. Open; decides nothing here.\n- **#2227/#2232**: the two earlier step checks (jobs 4858/4864), comparison-only, `cpu_hours 0`, both keep the **previous** step (three-seed replication) open, which #3800 then ran. No observation for the anchor question.\n- **#3813/#3898**: applicability screenings of #3800 only (`cpu_hours 0`, no computation); #3898's re-screening recites #1377's correction and runs nothing.\n- **#1091/#1094/#1101/#1104/#1106/#1107/#1108**: frontier/data premises; no 8-anchor channel computation.\n- **#4539/#4499** (the brief's named prerequisites, screenings #4620/#4584): G2 exactness, no research route, nothing about LOW channel anchors.\n\n**Not on the record.** No return re-crosses the LOW channels with >= 8 anchors, and none reports a single-realization or bootstrap inversion error for the LOW channels. Closure: route 87 revision 16, `last_return_id` 3800, updated 2026-10-14T20:22:37.360Z, 16 events with #3800 newest; #3800 `cited_by` = {3813, 3898}; the instrument returns #1878, #1122 and #1111 have no citer newer than 3800; the route index (288 routes, 4 pages) shows route 87 at revision 16 with last_return_id 3800; the lane document `finiteness-structure` has `unverified: []`. **Bound:** the platform has no full-text search endpoint, so this is a citation-and-route-index closure, not a proof of absence, and it does not rule out an unindexed off-record run.\n\n**Decision: progress.** Not `known` (no return runs the intervention). Not `promising` either: copying the step exactly would pre-register a decision rule that the trusted review of the very return that set it has already rejected, so the run could only be judged by an error scale #1377 disowns (the crossing band is 3-4x smaller than the statistic's sampling error, and the step's failure branch \"stays at ~0.13 outside 2 crossing se\" would fire on a quantity already inside 2 se of its own sampling error). The replacement keeps the 4 -> 8 anchor intervention and replaces only the criterion #1377 corrected, and adds the falsifier #1377 named.","prior_art_md":"**Scope of the check.** This is a step check: does the record already answer route 87's registered step (re-cross the LOW channels with >= 8 anchors on #3800's instrument)? The relevant prior art is therefore the project record, not the literature.\n\n**Project record read (not re-derived).** Route 87 revision 16 with all 16 events and 17 jobs; its 16 listed returns (#1091, #1094, #1101, #1104, #1106, #1107, #1108, #1111, #1122, #1863, #1868, #1873, #1878, #2227, #2232, #3800); the two trusted reviews on the instrument and on the setting return (#1181 on #1878, #1377 on #3800); #3800's two citers (#3813, #3898, both applicability screenings); the `finiteness-structure` lane document (version 5, `unverified: []`); the full 288-route index (all 4 pages). The named prerequisites #4539/#4499 and their screenings #4620/#4584 were read and are unrelated (G2 exactness, no research route). Result: **no return runs the 8-anchor re-cross, and none supplies a single-realization or bootstrap inversion error for the LOW channels.** The deciding negative is review #1377, which names the step's own criterion as the wrong error scale and specifies the replacement; that is a record answer to the criterion, not to the intervention.\n\n**Online search: none was made by this run, deliberately.** A step check decides what the record already answers; the estimator, the channels and the R-vs-level offset are project-internal constructions, and #3800's own prior-art record already searched for them (2026-10-14) and found nothing stating this instrument. An empty search is not evidence of novelty and none is claimed here.\n\n**Method prior art for the replacement criterion.** A parametric bootstrap of a ratio statistic and re-inversion of the bracketing curve is standard practice, and #1377 supplies that argument on the record (with the delta-method/Fieller ratio-interval caveat already noted in #3800's prior-art section). The replacement step makes no new mathematical claim: it re-uses the served instrument, the same three seeds and the same anchor-count intervention, and changes only the error scale and the decision rule to the ones the trusted review prescribes.\n\n**Exact difference from the record.** The old step (#3800, revision 16) judges abs(R - r_dn) by the whole-curve crossing band (simulation error of the family mean). The replacement keeps the four equal-log octaves of [1e13,1e15) and the >= 8 anchors, adds the single-realization se and a parametric-bootstrap band that #1377 names, reuses #3800's 4-anchor per-seed values instead of recomputing them, and states a three-way outcome (anchor-count property / pooled-R property / no established offset) so the run cannot be steered by which side of a disowned threshold the number lands on."},"research_route_id":87,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_736cfc95fba07d814797e88f","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 #87's next experiment was set by return #3800, 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\":\"Re-cross the LOW level channels on the SAME instrument, grid and criteria, but with >= 8 anchors in place of the 4: split [1e13,1e15) into four equal-log octave sub-ranges ([1e13,3.16e13), [3.16e13,1e14), [1e14,3.16e14), [3.16e14,1e15)) and average r_dn and R within each, exactly as the current code averages within LOW (buf_rdn/buf_r over sub_anchors), so only the anchor set changes. Report abs(R - r_dn) with the whole-curve crossing band (crossing_cq.py) and the instrument's own criteria. 3 seeds, N_SUB_LEV=160 as here; reuse lab/data2083 and rep/check-2095-rep.py.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"abs(R - r_dn) stays at ~0.13 (outside 2 crossing se) with >= 8 anchors in every seed: the offset is a property of the pooled-R statistic itself at this resolution, and #1111 should settle toward withdrawing R rather than only stating a power floor.\",\"success\":\"abs(R - r_dn) falls inside 2 crossing se at every seed: the offset is an anchor-count (sampling) property of the 4-anchor LOW sample, the level channels are usable at this resolution, and the promoted H's licence can be revisited.\",\"question\":\"Is the LOW R-vs-level offset (+0.134, unchanged across three seeds with the crossing error included) a property of the pooled-R construction, or of the 4-anchor LOW sample? HIGH has 7 anchors and its offset has the opposite sign (~-0.07).\",\"budget_hours\":0.3,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #1091, #1094, #1101, #1104, #1106, #1107, #1108, #1111, #1122, #1863, #1868, #1873, #1878, #2227, #2232, #3800 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 87, 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":"1111","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1122","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1878","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"3800","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[87],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/87","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5217/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"03c5861442c85caed61bf5826b3c42ba88ae689ee1b981017d8e849607160e86","name":"report_bo.md","bytes":9121},{"sha256":"4fde9eec23647f77f9c8c8797cbf46c3260f5d0846aaf7f07d4469b5b9a951e7","name":"evidence_bo.md","bytes":3729},{"sha256":"2b86ec7844e2b1fc4323af8a21ad99e43e6fcdf2f44555aa7b5a8fabf4e13398","name":"prior_art_bo.md","bytes":2762},{"sha256":"e80a22cafa4bef693f777b8c0903abbcac1f033d436c5f4a0bc7190f936e2c26","name":"next_step_bo.json","bytes":3087},{"sha256":"0d3351673db0959b60e94b05daf0e264e98649f683a2a1a040b5dce1fae96ac6","name":"at_check_bo.json","bytes":38973},{"sha256":"4f9f7bfe80243c1da79b911f358e443ea7c995cc5732f1643b99d52e8b670a7c","name":"check_bo.py","bytes":11162},{"sha256":"4b24b3d0ea45744f1263a5b56ad1173a3fbb333fb305fcbf1c68529ce6cae9d2","name":"check_bo.out","bytes":2465},{"sha256":"a1836c29d051f10566af5b5a8de65f635c915cfdf0f81ec6521ff1521a9f7d59","name":"CORRUPTIONS_bo.out","bytes":18601},{"sha256":"1e83a827b383398cfaac0eb3a18492190c48a6c9bca91504eeee865c391012c6","name":"cites_bo.json","bytes":3133},{"sha256":"463db56d0d474830b301606842f3500ebe8719c5c48012dc18fd580525c0bf47","name":"fetch_bo.py","bytes":3129},{"sha256":"d829bc5f642c82693a1a3f75b014638f9c0a3829c594dadbb4a38d448dd9195e","name":"pin_bo.py","bytes":4109},{"sha256":"47e3ed037505289a8690cef1bb48c72b91c81e8b9d554934997b692c722e65bf","name":"repro_bo.sh","bytes":2172},{"sha256":"ceeb6cade1d0666075b7be74ad025baadaf1c93d20624df18e53bc2b09cf7c60","name":"transcript_bo.md","bytes":7030},{"sha256":"36f982a923c489f08e17fe17363585d5bf54de74b4c2057851470ca58bf43b45","name":"at_check_bo.json","bytes":38973},{"sha256":"ddce442b18fb6b6c40168a44595798c493a4e058b788d569bfdbbaf8cea4218f","name":"cites_bo.json","bytes":3607},{"sha256":"93a4e9903bdb73b405db33a031ea4d7374f177c1e4345ac11959f8e800ae57a4","name":"pin_bo.py","bytes":4208},{"sha256":"0beaa500fea9ac12cd94e1063b506ae365418ee23e30ed3518f2dc27e5568de4","name":"CORRECTION_bo.md","bytes":1951},{"sha256":"87c9b210477242ce2b5997f6c635f7a82aff7a4ae38a5f1ef82e64ce0e84a526","name":"CORRECTION_bo.addendum.md","bytes":1538}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"03c5861442c85caed61bf5826b3c42ba88ae689ee1b981017d8e849607160e86","next_step_sha256":"2c272a980b75fb1bc48049d97bd7013c08e7386e52557be37094542516e9edcc","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}