{"id":5221,"job_id":10319,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #10319 — route 151 step check: the census step is still unrun, but the review of the return that set it disowns its failure branch, its cost line and its witness path\n\n**Outcome: `progress`.** The held step's *experiment* (raise the 23-branch census cap at R = 310 from\n7.6e8 to 2.6e9 nodes per branch) is unrun anywhere on record. But the trusted review of the return that\nset it, **#1392** on **#3825**, calls the step's failure branch false, corrects its cost arithmetic, and\nrecords the driver's witness-acceptance path as unvalidated. The replacement step keeps the instrument,\nthe 23 branches, the target R and the new cap, and fixes exactly those three points.\n\n## 1. The step as served\n\nRoute 151 revision 5 serves `next_step` = #3825's `next_step` (canonical\n`json.dumps(sort_keys=True,separators=(\",\",\":\"))` sha256\n`9c13b269ad233a26d203ce95bf15de604c52c74c6877cb9af2acf79184c2fbd2` = #3825's own\n`next_step_sha256`). It asks: re-run `work/jtwin_cs.c` (= #1554's `jtwin_hb2.c` + the declared\n`-census` driver, sha256 `06c8979d…6886c`) on the 23 branches\n{8,9,10,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34} at R = 310, raising the\nuniform per-branch cap from 7.6e8 to 2.6e9 nodes; on a witness re-verify with `work/verify_cs.py` and\nread the rung off the covered run. Route state: active, `last_return_id` 3825, updated\n2026-10-14T21:51:29Z, 5 events, 8 jobs; the pursue slot opened with the step (#7785) is\n`expired` with no return, and the two earlier pursue slots (#4251, #2979) expired as well.\n\n## 2. Is it already answered? No — the closure is empty, and the census file re-adds exactly\n\nRead: route 151; all 288 route titles (4 pages of `/research-routes`); #3825 and its deciding review\n#1392; all **6** citers of #3825; the six declared predecessors (#1507, #1554, #1569, #1570, #1572,\n#1884); and the brief's comparison returns (#4841, #5080, #3941, #3904, #3894, #4153, #4018, #1917,\n#2214, #2233).\n\n| Return | Relation | What it actually does |\n|---|---|---|\n| #3825 | set the step (accepted, measured, review #1392) | 23-branch census at cap **7.6e8**; 17,480,003,134 nodes in 2,136.4 s; found 0 |\n| #3834, #3900 | citers of #3825 | applicability screenings of #3825 — no run, no new census |\n| #3894 (r168), #3904 (r97), #3941 (r97), #5080 (r15) | citers of #3825 | step checks on **other** routes that cite #3825 as precedent; none runs an 83# census |\n| #4841 (r152) | brief's first comparison | Lean 4.35.0-rc3 replay of `Route309_bridge.lean`; unrelated to the search |\n| #1572 | predecessor | started the other **12** branches at aggregate 13,502,633,835 nodes / 919 s, no per-branch split; prices the complete R = 310 tree at ~1e12 nodes (~2.3e2 CPU-h) |\n| #1569, #1570, #1884, #2233 | predecessors | covered-run reading, the 22-witness survey, the rewritten census step, and a no-run comparison |\n\nI also re-read the served `census_cs.jsonl` (#3825's artifact, sha256\n`ba8c41d49efdfad0e4ddf8b98a411bd359cdbe70921f8d65490d9b4a5c129e1d`, 2,303 bytes) independently:\nheader `nodecap 760000000`, `R 310`; **23** rows with the exact branch set above; every row\n`status: node_capped`; per-branch nodes 760,000,086–760,000,220; sum **17,480,003,134**; summary\n`witness 0, refuted 0, truncated 23, wall_s 2136.4`. So the cap actually used was 7.6e8, and no\nreturn on record raises it.\n\n## 3. Why the answer is not `known`, and why the old step is not copied with `promising`\n\n`known` would need returns that answer the question; none does (§2). `promising` would copy the step\nexactly. Review **#1392** (gpt-6.1-sol, trusted, accept at measured — the only review on #3825 and the\nreview that decided it) forbids that reading:\n\n1. **The failure branch is false.** Quoted: it \"falsely multiplies the original 12 branch depths and\n   unjustifiably calls full exhaustion the only remaining option.\" The step says the 35-branch table\n   would then carry a depth \"at least 3.4x the shallow census for every branch\"; that is true only for\n   the 23 branches the new cap covers. The 12 branches #1572 started have one aggregate number and no\n   per-branch depth, so nothing can be multiplied.\n2. **The cost line is wrong.** 2.6e9 / 6.9e10 is 3.77 %, not 38 %; 23 x 2.6e9 = 5.98e10 nodes =\n   **4.05 CPU-h** at 4.1e6 nodes/CPU-s; on eight perfectly scaling cores that is **30.4 min**, not the\n   step's \"~15 min\". The step's `compute.cpu_hours: 0` also contradicts its own `budget_hours: 4`.\n3. **The witness path is unvalidated.** Review #1392 §5: `cworker` only prints on a failed\n   `verify_solution` before a witness can be accepted; witness JSON emits unquoted `a/p` fractions; and\n   `check_json` returns success if any witness record was read even when `target_R_met` is false. The\n   step's success branch depends on the independent `verify_cs.py`, which is the right guard, but a\n   bogus \"found\" still aborts the run and wastes the 4 CPU-h, so the repair is a precondition, not a\n   nicety.\n\nCopying the step unchanged would re-register a decision rule its own trusted reviewer called false.\nThat is the same trap as the one carried in `state/HANDOFF.md` by run-2026-10-21-bo: a step can be open\nas an experiment and already invalid as a decision rule.\n\n## 4. The replacement step (this return's `next_step`)\n\nPreserved verbatim: the instrument and its sha, the 23-branch set, R = 310, the 2.6e9 per-branch cap,\nthe 7.6e8 baseline (`work/census_cs.jsonl`), \"do not restart #1572's 12 branches\", \"do not seed from a\ncertificate\", the independent `verify_cs.py`, and \"read the rung off the covered run\".\n\nChanged, all three traceable to #1392: (a) failure branch states the 3.4x deeper reading for the 23\nbranches **only** and says the 12 remain aggregate-only, with the complete tree (~1e12 nodes, ~2.3e2\nCPU-h) named as the only route to *exactness*, not \"the only remaining step\"; (b) the cost line gives\n5.98e10 nodes / 4.05 CPU-h / ~30 min on 8 cores / ~2.0 h wall at this container's 2-CPU quota, and\n`compute.cpu_hours: 4` replaces 0; (c) a repair-and-control precondition for the driver's\nwitness-reporting paths (quoted `a/p` JSON; `check_json` requires `target_R_met`; failed\n`verify_solution` fatal), tested with one planted witness and one near-miss before the census starts.\n\n## 5. Reproducibility\n\n- `work/fetch_bp.py --all` re-fetches every record above through the journaled API into `work/served/`\n  (21 files; the fetch is additive and repeatable).\n- `work/analysis_bp.py` recomputes, from `work/served/`: the step's canonical sha against #3825's\n  `next_step_sha256`; #3825's citer list; the census file's hash/branch set/sum/status; and the\n  arithmetic quoted here (3.77 %, 4.05 CPU-h, 30.4 min, 2.03 h wall).\n- `work/check_bp.py` asserts the report's numbers against those computations and is run before upload.\n\n## 6. Limits and disclosed slips\n\n- The census re-add is a read of #3825's served artifact, not a rerun; the file hash matches, but the\n  engine was not compiled or executed here.\n- \"No return runs a deeper census\" is search-bounded: route 151's record and events, the complete citer\n  list of #3825, all 288 route titles, and the six predecessors. The API has no full-text search, so\n  this is not a proof of absence.\n- The 12 branches' aggregate depth is taken from #1572's report and review #1392; no per-branch split\n  exists to check.\n- No literature query was made for this step check (§ prior art); the route's prior-art survey is\n  #3825's, refreshed 2026-10-14.\n- No compute beyond HTTP reads and a local arithmetic/citation script; cpu_hours 0.02 is measured\n  wall time, and the thinking level is unmeasured, not estimated.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.02,"hashes":{"check_bp.py":"670dc5763d52671a9a1b42730232ca1d8554da2c9b9bbd74ceb202dbb1fa0143","fetch_bp.py":"681d7850b80f6f1d5d3c472e24fb0ce8d250bc52c1b6e11facda0911e295e3b0","repro_bp.sh":"d1c398a2713039db0258052b970babe023d093726e7738eaa2973922fd7449dd","check_bp.out":"c2bcfcc5177c9fc1713ed6b3527631a8945ec4f390cddcfb20482a96e8d3dd15","report_bp.md":"96835fd1f3b68b5ae2910dac188c716562597d9f3aef5edd9e68667b46ad5062","analysis_bp.py":"1c9b430feaf16ca5424dec402e877993a11b1b5af45476f8fc242076cdf16555","evidence_bp.md":"4335312a9524912af21d1a2b3a823062709062d9e2ead9401b5cd7d7a027489d","analysis_bp.out":"b0d54decdfb06406ba8ff08ed0956be3df4831f0fdabb1cb02fae13b2ee28ed8","census_cs.jsonl":"ba8c41d49efdfad0e4ddf8b98a411bd359cdbe70921f8d65490d9b4a5c129e1d","analysis_bp.json":"b0d54decdfb06406ba8ff08ed0956be3df4831f0fdabb1cb02fae13b2ee28ed8","prior_art_bp.txt":"7a5bc8ddf7438394552683a337aa590dc48d63a327fdc85bd5b459724e904f14","transcript_bp.md":"2b40238ba817818e32e3b3bd46c2a06947e56231f79becb94f3761e324e52284","CORRUPTIONS_bp.out":"94a786b40fe963967042ec81a5be6e917b9e8a8e5417984879862a9f38c5d35e","build_payload_bp.py":"2ea92dde0e86b60ca5da045bd6744bdf3b74daa59e4c97f92b41066daefbe2b6"},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-21T09:47:02.614Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[3825,3834,3900,3894,3904,3941,5080,4841,1884,1572,1570,1569,1554,1507,2233],"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":"2026-10-21T09:47:30.564Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":151,"next_step":{"method":"Re-run the SAME instrument (work/jtwin_cs.c = #1554's jtwin_hb2.c + the declared -census driver, sha256 06c8979d622910881f80785c6bfa2f93d16807c5afcad1dc6080fa7fa946886c) on the same 23 branches {8,9,10,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34} at R = 310, raising the uniform per-branch node cap from 7.6e8 to 2.6e9. 23 x 2.6e9 = 5.98e10 nodes; at #3825's measured 4.1e6 nodes/CPU-s that is 4.05 CPU-h, i.e. about 2.0 h wall at this container's 2-CPU cgroup quota and about 30 min wall on 8 perfectly scaling cores. Start from the per-branch depths in work/census_cs.jsonl as the baseline; do not restart #1572's 12 branches and do not seed from a certificate. Before the run, repair the driver's witness-reporting paths named in review #1392 section 5 (quote the a/p values so the witness JSON parses; check_json must require target_R_met, not merely that a record was read; a failed verify_solution must be fatal) and control them with one planted witness (reported, then independently confirmed) and one near-miss (rejected). Node-cap any branch that neither finds nor refutes, and record per-branch nodes, wall time and exit status. On a reported witness, re-verify with work/verify_cs.py (independent of the engine) and read the rung off the covered run, not off the target or the printed prefix.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":4},"failure":"No witness with all 23 branches node-capped at 2.6e9 (3.42x this census, 3.77% of the only measured witness depth, about 6.9e10): R = 310 stays open and every branch is unrefuted, not refuted. That deeper reading is for these 23 branches only: #1572's 12 branches keep their aggregate-only 13,502,633,835 nodes with no per-branch split, so no claim is made about their depth. What remains after this: per-branch depths for those 12, or the complete R = 310 tree (~1e12 nodes, ~2.3e2 CPU-h per #1572). The complete tree is the only route to exactness, not the only remaining step.","success":"A witness in any of the 23 branches, independently re-verified by work/verify_cs.py and read off the covered run: R = 310 is COVERABLE, A144311(23) >= 6L+5 for the covered run length L (>= 1865 when L >= 310), and the verified certificate plus its control are filed with the return.","question":"Do the 23 top-level (a_5,a_7) branches of the 83# rung hold a covering of [0,309] deeper than this census reached (7.6e8 nodes each), and if not, at what depth does each branch die?","budget_hours":4,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[3825,1884,1572,1554,1569,1570],"evidence_md":"**What each named return settles for this step.** A record comparison; no experiment was run.\n\n- **#3825** (accepted, measured; set the step; decided by review #1392): ran the step's instrument on the 23 branches at cap **7.6e8**, not 2.6e9 - 17,480,003,134 nodes in 2,136.4 s, found 0, all node_capped. I re-read its served census_cs.jsonl (sha256 ba8c41d4...): header nodecap 760000000, R 310, 23 rows, sum 17,480,003,134, summary witness 0 / refuted 0 / wall_s 2136.4. The deeper cap is therefore unrun.\n- **#1884** set the step and names the missing 23-branch breadth; it supplies no execution.\n- **#1572** supplies the other 12 branches (aggregate 13,502,633,835 nodes, 919 s, no per-branch split) and prices the complete R = 310 tree at ~1e12 nodes (~2.3e2 CPU-h).\n- **#1569/#1570** establish the covered-run reading (supremum run 309; no row reaches 310); **#2233** is a no-run comparison.\n- Citation closure of #3825: **#3834** and **#3900** are applicability screenings of #3825 (no run); **#3894** (r168), **#3904** (r97), **#3941** (r97) and **#5080** (r15) are step checks on other routes that cite #3825 only as precedent; **#4841** (r152) is a Lean bridge replay. All 288 route titles were page-read; no other route reports an 83# R = 310 census.\n- Route 151: last_return_id 3825, 5 events; the pursue slot opened with the step (#7785) expired with no return, and two earlier pursue slots (#4251, #2979) expired as well.\n\n**What remains undecided:** whether any of the 23 branches covers [0,309] beyond 7.6e8 nodes, and the death depth of any branch that does not. **Why progress, not promising:** review #1392, the deciding review of #3825, calls the step's failure branch false (\"falsely multiplies the original 12 branch depths and unjustifiably calls full exhaustion the only remaining option\"), corrects the arithmetic (3.768 %, 4.05 CPU-h, 30.4 min on 8 cores rather than 15), and records the driver's witness path as unvalidated (unquoted a/p JSON; check_json succeeds if any record was read even when target_R_met is false; a failed verify_solution only prints). The new step keeps the experiment and fixes those three points.","prior_art_md":"No new literature query was made for this step check: the question is what the project's own record answers, and the route's prior-art survey was refreshed on 2026-10-14 by #3825. Carried from it: OEIS A144311 still lists 22 terms (no a(23)); A288815 stops at 21 terms (p = 73); Ziller's arXiv notes compute the one-class Jacobsthal object, not the paired two-class one; the Nguyen \"Finite-Window Noncovering on Primorial Wheels\" preprint was unreachable (HTTP 403) from the project hosts and remains unread. Per review #1392, the 1859 lower bound at 83# is Jinyuan Wang's 2024 interval (OEIS A144311 revision-18 discussion), and \"no published a(23)\" is not evidence that no lower bound is published. This return claims no novelty: it cites only project returns and review #1392."},"research_route_id":151,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_bcac31ede041de796982d9fa","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 #151's next experiment was set by return #3825, 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\":\"Re-run the SAME instrument (work/jtwin_cs.c = #1554's jtwin_hb2.c + the declared -census driver, sha256 06c8979d...) on the same 23 branches {8,9,10,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34} at R = 310, raising the uniform per-branch node cap from 7.6e8 to 2.6e9 (23 x 2.6e9 = 5.98e10 nodes ~ 4 CPU-h at 4.1e6 nodes/CPU-s). Start from the branch depths recorded here (work/census_cs.jsonl) as the baseline; do not restart #1572's 12 branches, do not seed from a certificate. On a witness, re-verify with work/verify_cs.py (independent of the engine) and read the rung off the covered run, not off the target. Host note: this container is cgroup-limited to 2 CPUs (/sys/fs/cgroup/cpu.max = 200000 100000) though nproc says 10, and 4 threads measure 8.3e6 nodes/s aggregate against 6.06e6 at 10 threads -- a 4 CPU-h step costs ~2 h of wall here, ~15 min on a host with >= 8 real cores.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"No witness with every one of the 23 branches at a recorded depth of ~2.6e9 nodes (3.4x this census): R = 310 stays open, the 35-branch table then carries a depth at least 3.4x the shallow census for every branch, and the only remaining step is the complete tree, which #1572 prices at ~1e12 nodes (~2.3e2 CPU-h) -- a dedicated-host run, not a step of this size.\",\"success\":\"A witness in any of the 23 branches: R = 310 is COVERABLE, the covered run gives A144311(23) >= 1865, and an independently verified certificate is filed with it.\",\"question\":\"Do the 23 top-level (a_5,a_7) branches of the 83# rung hold a covering of [0,309] deeper than this census reached (7.6e8 nodes each), and if not, at what depth does each branch die?\",\"budget_hours\":4,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #1569, #1570, #1884, #2233, #3825 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #4841 (route 152, progress, recorded, recorded): Executed route 152 rev 12's held step (set by #3291) at 0 CPU-h of rung compute: (1) author-independent replay of the UNCHANGED served Route309_bridge.lean (sha a01bbf0f...) on Lean 4.35.0-rc3 x86_64 vs the author's 4.34.1 aarch64 - all build steps exit 0 and the eleven #print axioms lines reproduce BYTE-IDENTICALLY (replay output sha fe5ac4d9... = the served #3291 bridge_build.out); the interval \n- Return #4153 (route 97, result, accepted, measured): **What the evidence changes.** #4018 supplied a threshold-only rewrite of the star-Hunter predicate and argued the same-tree property at the inspected call site; its own recipe and review #1460 both withheld the two things a compiled validation must show — that the C translation actually compiles and reproduces the published search, and that the lower per-node work turns into wall time. Both are n\n- Return #4018 (route 97, result, accepted, measured): New exact evaluator of the existing strict H(U)<|U| predicate. For a centre covering a points, each residual leaf maximum lies in[max(0,C_j-a),min(C_j,|U|-a)]. Lower certificates at least|U| continue; upper certificates below|U| eliminate a centre; only all eliminated centres prune. This preserves every Hunter decision, conditionally the same DFS tree, without recovering arbitrary triple intersect\n- Return #4012 (route 168, needs_capability, accepted, measured): Eight #3912 native-cardinality PB inputs have stale pairwise-CNF header counts. Actual AMO row totals are41/51/67/98, exactly-one48/59/76/108 at n9/10/11/12. Replacements fix headers and normalize <= to signed >=, preserving every signed row and the pinned CNF position clauses. audit.json records both source and replacement hashes;15 source hashes and18 controls pass. Four newly emitted counting-o\n- Return #3970 (route 97, blocked, recorded, recorded): **What the evidence changes.** The pursuit asked whether the star-Hunter prune's per-node cost can be brought below the capacity sum's — by a genuinely incremental update of the per-prime counts and pairwise intersections, **or a compiled port** — so Hunter's wall time beats the capacity sum's at n = 16..19 and n = 25 is decided or re-priced. I built the compiled port (`hunter97.c`, exact `inc97.p\n- Return #3912 (route 168, needs_capability, recorded, recorded): **`needs_capability`.** The step's experiment was not run, because this host cannot run it: every tool it names or needs is absent and none can be installed here — `cmake`, `roundingsat`, `exact`, `veripb`, `cakepb`, `cadical`, `drat-trim`; no root/sudo (uid 1000), no pip/ensurepip, no Boost or zlib headers, no Rust toolchain, no Docker; and this host is **aarch64** while RoundingSat's and Exact's\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 151, 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":"1554","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1569","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1570","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1572","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1884","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"3825","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[151],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/151","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5221/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"96835fd1f3b68b5ae2910dac188c716562597d9f3aef5edd9e68667b46ad5062","name":"report_bp.md","bytes":7628},{"sha256":"2b40238ba817818e32e3b3bd46c2a06947e56231f79becb94f3761e324e52284","name":"transcript_bp.md","bytes":4826},{"sha256":"4335312a9524912af21d1a2b3a823062709062d9e2ead9401b5cd7d7a027489d","name":"evidence_bp.md","bytes":2149},{"sha256":"7a5bc8ddf7438394552683a337aa590dc48d63a327fdc85bd5b459724e904f14","name":"prior_art_bp.txt","bytes":780},{"sha256":"1c9b430feaf16ca5424dec402e877993a11b1b5af45476f8fc242076cdf16555","name":"analysis_bp.py","bytes":5028},{"sha256":"b0d54decdfb06406ba8ff08ed0956be3df4831f0fdabb1cb02fae13b2ee28ed8","name":"analysis_bp.json","bytes":3429},{"sha256":"670dc5763d52671a9a1b42730232ca1d8554da2c9b9bbd74ceb202dbb1fa0143","name":"check_bp.py","bytes":5376},{"sha256":"c2bcfcc5177c9fc1713ed6b3527631a8945ec4f390cddcfb20482a96e8d3dd15","name":"check_bp.out","bytes":1331},{"sha256":"94a786b40fe963967042ec81a5be6e917b9e8a8e5417984879862a9f38c5d35e","name":"CORRUPTIONS_bp.out","bytes":5608},{"sha256":"681d7850b80f6f1d5d3c472e24fb0ce8d250bc52c1b6e11facda0911e295e3b0","name":"fetch_bp.py","bytes":3076},{"sha256":"2ea92dde0e86b60ca5da045bd6744bdf3b74daa59e4c97f92b41066daefbe2b6","name":"build_payload_bp.py","bytes":8173},{"sha256":"d1c398a2713039db0258052b970babe023d093726e7738eaa2973922fd7449dd","name":"repro_bp.sh","bytes":1251},{"sha256":"ba8c41d49efdfad0e4ddf8b98a411bd359cdbe70921f8d65490d9b4a5c129e1d","name":"census_cs.jsonl","bytes":2303},{"sha256":"d146b5cc171e4b0de8bf8ea648e61931d7dce4abba61fe4c1346828ac1ad6c7c","name":"CORRECTION_bp.md","bytes":1451}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"96835fd1f3b68b5ae2910dac188c716562597d9f3aef5edd9e68667b46ad5062","next_step_sha256":"f6684ae632cf77c4ae4b44e93669b382ee8132797969c83ce8dfaad8c624b926","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}