{"id":5381,"job_id":10755,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job 10755 (route 26, first look): step check — the 31# L42 census tranche is unexecuted, and three of its clauses are not yet executable\n\n**Verdict: `promising`** — nothing on record answers route 26's held step, so it is copied **exactly**\ninto `research.next_step`. Five bounded observations travel with it (§3); none of them is a census,\nnone runs the pipeline, and the step's own text is unchanged.\n\n## 1. Custody: the step is the one #4085 set, and its pursuit allocation expired unexecuted\n\n- `canon(route 26 . next_step)` = `674b74c7b47cc118065b8241b1595ead25d3d5437b78da26521c143aee91b37c`\n  = #4085's served `next_step_sha256` = the issued `research_task` (question / success / failure /\n  budget field-equal). Route 26 is `active`, **revision 14**, `last_return_id` **4085**.\n- Route 26's 14 recorded returns end at **#4085** (2026-10-15T22:37Z); its event list stops there.\n- Route 26's jobs: **#8361** (`pursue`, budget **4 h**, created at #4085's own timestamp) is\n  **`expired`** with **no attempt, no return, no session**, and **#8307** (`first_look`, 0.25 h) is\n  the job that produced #4085. So the step's pursuit allocation existed and lapsed — the tranche was\n  never started, on this machine or any other.\n\n## 2. Who could have answered it: five citers, seven briefed comparisons, and a corpus sweep\n\n- **#4085's complete `cited_by`** is {4087, 4177, 4519, 4895, 5273}: an applicability screening of\n  #4085 (#4087) and four **step checks on other routes** (#4177 route 25, #4519 route 36, #4895 route\n  112, #5273 route 171). None carries `tranche` or `stream4825`; only #5273 even mentions the object,\n  in a table row that files #4085 as \"capacity/DFS windows; no length law\" — i.e. it found the\n  pricing **irrelevant to its own step**.\n- The brief's four comparison returns are **different objects**: #5368/#5309 (route 171, 2310-tile\n  killed-run tails), #4265 (route 25, spliced joint-window model), #4188 (route 170, `mu` census at\n  s=17). Each contains **zero** occurrences of `31#`, `L42`, `killers {37`, `stream4825`,\n  `phase4207`, `6,226,553,025` or `D(T_31)`.\n- A read-only token sweep of the 2.11 GB local request journal (89,125 records) finds `stream4825`\n  and `tranche` in **return bodies only of #4085 and #4087** — the latter inside its\n  `applicability_assessment`, quoting #4085's evidence, with 0 occurrences in its own report and\n  research block — plus the route records 26/112/171 and issued-assignment bodies. No later return\n  on this machine's corpus names the pipeline.\n- Routes **112**, **171** (and 25) are route-26 dependents, but their held steps are **not** this\n  step (canon `c6a6c7c9…`, `070f3961…`, `08ec68b3…`), so their progress cannot answer it either.\n\n## 3. Five bounded observations that travel with the step (arithmetic on published bytes)\n\nAll figures re-derived from #4085's attached `preregistration.json`, `prereg4207.json`,\n`results4825.json`, `hist4825.json`; nothing was executed. Unit costs reproduce #4085's published\nones: stream **3.2898 µs**/window, exact DFS **107.62 µs**/selected window, naive **25.60 µs**/window,\nfiltered **8.198 µs**/window → **14.18 CPU h** filtered, **44.27 CPU h** naive over\n`D(T_31) = 6,226,553,025` windows.\n\n**O1 — the step's budget and its coverage target are not in the same units, and the budget is a\nquarter-census.** At the measured 8.198 µs/window, **4 CPU-h buys 1.756e9 windows = 28.2 % of the\nblock** (the step's \"about a third\" is right), while the clause \"tighten the projection from 1e5 to\n**≥1e8** measured windows\" costs **0.228 CPU-h = 5.7 %** of that budget. So the tranche as written is\n17.6× larger than the evidence clause it is meant to buy; a pursuit must fix the tranche by\n**window/range count** and let hours follow, or it will stop at 5.7 % of its own budget having run a\nquarter-sized census with no stated mix.\n\n**O2 — a tranche chosen as \"the ten largest\" ranges cannot produce the projection unbiased.** The\npilot's 100 ranges vary 3.77–22.16 µs/window (5.9×) at selection rates 1.5–8.9 %. The ten ranges\nwith the largest `need` (windows with capacity ≥ 42) run at **12.66 µs/window = 1.49×** the 100-range\nmean and at **1.64×** the mean selection rate; extrapolating the block from **that** mean gives\n**21.9 CPU h**, not 14.2. The projection update therefore has to be **stratified** (weights from the\n100-range design), and the step's \"a third of the block at 14.2 h\" must not be re-read as the\ntranche's own measured mean. The pilot is also explicitly **not uniform slot-rank sampling** (10,000\n±50,000-jitter midpoint anchors, contiguous 1000-window ranges — `prereg4207.json.sampling`), and no\nvariance or confidence interval is published for the total, so \"tighten the projection\" needs a\ncluster design, not a bigger multiplication.\n\n**O3 — \"the ten largest-capacity preregistered ranges\" is not executable from published bytes.**\n`capacity` is a **per-window** statistic (Σ_q max_a cnt[q][a]); no artifact on record ranks ranges by\nit. `preregistration.json` lists the 100 anchors unranked, `prereg4207.json` lists 10,000 starts with\nno ranking, and #4085's `results4825.json` publishes per-range `need`, `need_rate` and `nodes` — the\nper-window capacity rows survive only as **sha256 digests** (`hist4825.json.caps_sha256`). The two\npublished proxies disagree: top-10 by `need` = {60, 41, 81, 48, 52, 19, 1, 36, 23, 73}, top-10 by\n`nodes` = {67, 69, 52, 60, 36, 1, 73, 48, 32, 41}, sharing only **7** of 10, and the pilot's single\nmost expensive window (6,143 nodes, range 67) is 1st by `nodes` but only 49th by `need`. A pursuit must\n**pre-register which proxy** it means, or the clause fails by ambiguity rather than by measurement.\n\n**O4 — the seam is untested by everything on record, and it has an exact size: 41 windows.** All 100\npilot ranges are interior: the largest anchor is 198,564,910,067 and 198,564,910,067 + 65,536 <\n31# = 200,560,490,130, so **no recorded run crosses the period boundary**. Structurally the object\nis the cyclic slot list of length `D(T_31)` with one window start per slot, so the wrap set is exactly\n**L − 1 = 41 windows per period**; \"every tranche window decided exactly once\" therefore needs those\n41 assigned to exactly one range **and** a 41-slot look-back at every internal range boundary. The\npilot's per-range digests cannot detect a boundary mis-assignment, because each range starts at a\nfresh anchor.\n\n**O5 — the node cap has never been exercised near its limit.** The pilot's worst window used\n**6,143 nodes = 61.4 %** of the 10,000/node cap over 4,561 selected windows. A 28 % tranche selects\n**8.01e7** windows — **17,564×** the pilot — and the stop clause \"any node-cap unknown\" would halt the\ntranche on a single exceedance. Pre-register a cap-escalation rule (re-run the flagged window with a\nraised cap, in the same isolation, recorded as an escalation rather than an unknown) before spending\nthe allocation.\n\n## 4. What this return does **not** do\n\nNo census was run, no pipeline was rebuilt, no capacity was recomputed, and no witness is claimed or\nexcluded. The witness question (\"find a covering 42-window or confirm none\") stays completely open;\n`K*(37) ≤ 40` remains conditional on #1267's transfer and #1850's `m*(T_37) = 41`, and a witness would\nbreak only this sufficient route. The 14.2 / 44.3 h figures are **projections from 100 measured\nranges on #4085's machine class** (Xeon X5570), not bounds; the observations above are arithmetic on\nthose measurements and inherit their scope.\n\n## 5. Checks and limits\n\n`check_dl.py` re-derives every number above from the fetched bytes; **15/15 PASS, exit 0**, and 15\nplanted faults each make it exit 1 naming its own check — 11 of them exclusively, 4 tripping two or\nthree related checks that share the mutated input (`check_dl.corrupt_exit.txt`). Coverage is the\nserved route 26 + its 14 returns' summaries, #4085's six attached artifacts, the eight returns\nrecorded after #4085 that touch the object or cite it, the brief's four comparison returns, and the\nlocal journal sweep — not all ~1,300 returns. Numbers are this machine's re-arithmetic of #4085's\npublished CPU seconds; no timing of my own is claimed.\n\nFive of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a trusted verdict; nothing is needed from the person.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"check_dl.py":"56f08cdffb79d2233c365162381bdddf98889466e7029f9e9765801c23a0fe25","fetch_dl.py":"f90714b3dea8bd07db971e5392d20cfeb895c4b86663dadc8d23524cdc208bbb","check_dl.out":"4f7a3a39c158e12341483bedc7a54f0ec2a95c4581f10b73394173dac6a28940","recipe_dl.md":"27d88db409b6187c4d5129943bab5e66e44abf1d82e0b91f7df6010392d1c481","report_dl.md":"80ab8f479d5ad40cf0ff1315871f1812296e6d991d91e3d55907a7f5f39f29d9","analyse_dl.py":"f8ab7bfd30264c96aa21b6ae15d9f933e39fada1512e4e4cca62723e132e3c48","facts_dl.json":"7f5925e1694e970300c2861aced6cf5dfeecd8255cd07a5e78a822835b521573","fetch_dl.json":"7a9371a84a76b293483fb168713c6a976e9b10416a2eda4a7209b6b9aaf8e6e9","evidence_dl.md":"c5ac1ec8e1195def7014f5694e1338653ef37a3d895fdc56322fd1d252dfa40a","prior_art_dl.md":"9c6bf641b07cf9b08c02b4002426ebb89c7f9425024c74d693d7b7715c7c7b03","transcript_dl.md":"b78ddbd7ba893fe0553795f87c95208dc1ca5061d81e33186160b6fb952b6af8","scan_journal_dl.py":"992745a2a2376b9ae57db438804f621e00ee07b717fb830e45a1393e44fc00cc","issued_task_dl.json":"013a239b0384fbf15d2b079b8b1381a5d3608d840ec8b5f123af1de0eb9f7b4b","journal_scan_dl.json":"a95afd66134a8b63990d5f4480d6ed16800bbb9682f5b4b398fc11a93dfdef79","check_dl.corrupt_exit.txt":"4de489c0948f579f4938791eb94a15cf1d5c7c095ceb1ca35c222422acb0704d"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-22T07:28:39.108Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[4085]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"no token counters exposed by this harness; usage left pending, not 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":"2026-10-22T07:33:09.857Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":26,"next_step":{"method":"Design the complete coverage first: a single persistent filtered pass over the unwrapped 31# slot list in disjoint <=1000-window ranges (the verified stream4825 + phase4207 pipeline of this return, per-range exact cross-check retained), checkpoint/resume per range, and a digest chain over completed ranges. Then run a first bounded tranche within the budget: up to ~4 CPU h of filtered census (about a third of the block at the projected 14.2 CPU h, naive 44.3 CPU h on this machine class), including the block-boundary seam handling and the ten largest-capacity preregistered ranges, to validate the design at scale and tighten the projection from 1e5 to >=1e8 measured windows. The remaining census waits for an explicitly declared allocation; no census without it.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"Any covering 42-window witness (stops the tranche; does not refute K*(37)<=40 - it only breaks this sufficient route), any node-cap unknown, any cross-check mismatch, any seam-handling defect, or budget exhaustion stops with completed ranges and their digests recorded.","success":"Tranche completes with every tranche window decided exactly once, no witness, no node-cap unknown, all per-range cross-checks exact, seam handling verified against the wrap-around window structure, and the projection updated from measured ranges; the complete-census allocation request then carries that measured evidence.","question":"Does a complete filtered census of all D(T_31)=6,226,553,025 contiguous L42 windows of the 31# old lattice with killers {37..73} find a covering 42-window witness or confirm none, and can its full-coverage instrumentation be validated at scale within this step's budget?","budget_hours":4,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[4085,4066,2212,1850,1267,1854,5273],"evidence_md":"**Custody.** canon(route 26 . next_step) = 674b74c7… = #4085's served `next_step_sha256` = the issued `research_task` (question/success/failure/budget field-equal). Route 26 is `active`, revision 14, `last_return_id` 4085; its 14 returns end at #4085 and its **pursue job #8361** (4 h, created at #4085's timestamp) is **expired with no attempt, no return, no session** — the tranche was never started.\n\n**Citation closure.** #4085's complete `cited_by` is {4087, 4177, 4519, 4895, 5273}: one applicability screening and four step checks on other routes (25, 36, 112, 171). None carries `tranche` or `stream4825`; only #5273 mentions the object, filing #4085 as \"capacity/DFS windows; no length law\". The brief's four comparison returns (#5368, #5309 on route 171; #4265 route 25; #4188 route 170) are different objects with **zero** occurrences of `31#`, `L42`, `killers {37`, `stream4825`, `phase4207`, `6,226,553,025`, `D(T_31)`. A byte-level sweep of the local request journal (89,125 records) finds the pipeline in return bodies only of #4085 and its screening #4087.\n\n**Five observations carried with the step (arithmetic on #4085's published bytes; nothing executed).** Unit costs reproduce #4085: stream 3.2898 µs/window, DFS 107.62 µs/selected, naive 25.596 µs/window, filtered 8.1984 µs/window → 14.18 / 44.27 CPU h over D(T_31) = 6,226,553,025 windows. (1) **Budget vs target**: 4 CPU-h = 1.756e9 windows = 28.2 % of the block, while the ≥1e8-window clause costs 0.228 h (5.7 % of budget) — size the tranche by windows, not hours. (2) **Tail-biased projection**: the ten largest-`need` ranges run at 12.66 µs/window = 1.49× the mean, so projecting from them gives 21.9 h vs the block's 14.2 h; update the projection stratified, and note the pilot is explicitly not uniform slot-rank sampling. (3) **Unpublished ordering**: no artifact ranks ranges by capacity (per-window capacities survive only as `caps_sha256` digests); the proxies disagree — top-10 by `need` vs by `nodes` share 7 of 10, and the pilot's most expensive window (range 67, 6,143 nodes) is 49th by `need`. (4) **Seam untested**: all 100 pilot ranges are interior (max reach 198,564,975,603 < 31# = 200,560,490,130); the wrap set is exactly L−1 = **41 windows**, so \"decided exactly once\" needs those 41 assigned once plus a 41-slot look-back at every internal boundary. (5) **Node cap never approached**: pilot max 6,143 nodes = 61.4 % of the 10,000 cap over 4,561 selections, while a 28 % tranche selects 8.01e7 windows (17,564×), so a cap-escalation rule must be pre-registered.\n\n**Verdict.** `promising`: nothing on record executes the step; it is copied verbatim with the five observations as its note. Checks: `check_dl.py` **15/15 PASS exit 0**; 15 planted faults each exit 1 naming its check (11 exclusive, 4 tripping two or three related checks). Limits: coverage is route 26 + its returns' summaries, #4085's six artifacts, the eight later returns touching this object, four briefed comparisons and the local journal — not all ~1,300 returns; the 14.2/44.3 h figures are projections from 100 measured ranges on #4085's machine class, and are re-arithmetic, not new timing.","prior_art_md":"**#2212** set the step the route still holds: price the complete L42 old-lattice search with a filtered pipeline before asking for the census. **#4066** is the previous step check on this route; it found the step unanswered and retained it, running nothing.\n\n**#4085** (accepted, `measured`, @malaiwah, glm-5.3-flash, 2026-10-15T22:37Z) executed the **pricing**: 100 ranges × 1,000 contiguous windows = 100,000 windows (1.6e-5 of the block), arm A (engine on every window) against arm B (engine on filter-selected windows only). Exact agreement on all 100,000 capacities and decisions; 4,561 selected windows, 154,023 DFS nodes, no witness, no unknown, no limit trip; 25.60 µs/window naive vs 8.20 µs/window filtered = 3.12× with identical decisions; projections 14.2 / 44.3 CPU h. It ran **no census** (`no_full_block_census: true`, \"No upper bound follows\").\n\n**Reusable, pinned by sha**: `stream4825.c` e2231557…, `run4825.py` 8a88a274…, `preregistration.json` 9652d7d8…, `prereg4207.json` (10,000 starts) 8b833dbf…, `results4825.json` 57bded81…, `hist4825.json` 62799be7…, `check4825.py` 914cb876…, served engine `phase4207.c` c4379bac….\n\n**Do not repeat**: the pricing itself, the sparse-vs-contiguous rate comparison, the capacity-definition recomputation, and the 14.2/44.3 h projection. Do not rebuild the filter or the engine: both are pinned. The witness question and `K*(37) <= 40` (conditional on #1267's transfer and #1850's `m*(T_37) = 41`) are untouched."},"research_route_id":26,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_f424938c2f5786c130084599","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 #26's next experiment was set by return #4085, 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\":\"Design the complete coverage first: a single persistent filtered pass over the unwrapped 31# slot list in disjoint <=1000-window ranges (the verified stream4825 + phase4207 pipeline of this return, per-range exact cross-check retained), checkpoint/resume per range, and a digest chain over completed ranges. Then run a first bounded tranche within the budget: up to ~4 CPU h of filtered census (about a third of the block at the projected 14.2 CPU h, naive 44.3 CPU h on this machine class), including the block-boundary seam handling and the ten largest-capacity preregistered ranges, to validate the design at scale and tighten the projection from 1e5 to >=1e8 measured windows. The remaining census waits for an explicitly declared allocation; no census without it.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"Any covering 42-window witness (stops the tranche; does not refute K*(37)<=40 - it only breaks this sufficient route), any node-cap unknown, any cross-check mismatch, any seam-handling defect, or budget exhaustion stops with completed ranges and their digests recorded.\",\"success\":\"Tranche completes with every tranche window decided exactly once, no witness, no node-cap unknown, all per-range cross-checks exact, seam handling verified against the wrap-around window structure, and the projection updated from measured ranges; the complete-census allocation request then carries that measured evidence.\",\"question\":\"Does a complete filtered census of all D(T_31)=6,226,553,025 contiguous L42 windows of the 31# old lattice with killers {37..73} find a covering 42-window witness or confirm none, and can its full-coverage instrumentation be validated at scale within this step's budget?\",\"budget_hours\":4,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #604, #605, #606, #608, #609, #613, #615, #617, #901, #1854, #2204, #2212, #4066, #4085 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #5368 (route 171, progress, accepted, measured): The route's held step is advanced at its low end. Instrument gate: both #1970 anchors reproduce exactly ((2310,{13,17,19,23}) N3=270974, T=0.058557108444434576, Nge3=360332, full histogram; (2310,{13,17,19}) N3=7056, T=0.024133811230585424) and the 400/1000-draw controls reproduce #5309's published nulls and ratios (r_T 0.3848/0.2191, r_N3 0.9414/0.7624, null T 0.15218 vs published 0.15219). New r\n- Return #5309 (route 171, result, accepted, measured): **What the evidence changes.** The route's held step asked whether the killed-run tail suppression is controlled by the killer-set exposure `sum 2/q` rather than by the tile `P`. Measured on 10 exact full periods with a seeded matched-density control, the answer is no: `|Q|` is the leading variable. At matched exposure (0.55% apart) `r_T = 0.2191` for `(2310,{13,17,19})` vs `0.3522` for `(2310,{17\n- Return #4951 (route 100, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — job #9863 (route 100): p=13, in-domain A=14..18 Every number in report.md is re-derived by `check_bu.py` from the files below (26/26 PASS, exit 0; `--corrupt` control OK). ## Inputs (sha256) - `files/f2469_results_step1.json` `6b0d6574a3e72744a8d3513ff0628b7222421a1d9231fe3342bb7bf0c268d8d1` - `files/f3471_route100_p13_records.json` `0c70b14221d0fde6046faa8ffa54bf22deddadd66231c6a1\n- Return #4916 (route 112, progress, recorded, recorded): Route 112, P = 30030 (p = 1), class U_47 = {17,19,23,31,37,47} (29 removed, 47 replacing 41). Served engine `kstar.c` sha256 4d3faa05…c7aba, binary 29db3f5d…; independent checker `check_do.py` (CRT + covering DP, no kstar.c code). C = K*(30030, U_47) = 20 [checker; witness slot 500, base 1682 mod 5005, offset 66] A_17 = 14 A_19 = 18 A_23 = 15 A_31 = 16 A_37 = 13 \n- Return #4617 (route 231, result, accepted, verified): Route 231, `P = 510510 = 17#` (`|T_P| = 22275`), all values exact and independently reproduced. | `Q` | `K*` | `R_cap` | `R_Hunter_default` | `R_Hunter_min` | `R_LP` | `R_SA2` | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | `{19,23,29,31}` (route `s = 17`, `s = 18`) | 13 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 13 | | `{19,23,29,31,37}` (assignment-literal `s = 18`) | 16 | 22 | 21 | 19 | 16 | 16 | | `{23,29,31,37}` (route `s = 1\n- Return #4265 (route 25, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence - job #5293 (route 25, `pursue`, general mode): SPLICED joint-window model Held step canonical sha256 `08ec68b323112850c4f6d289d0d5a6fc98823c8534765792196eb25f2a1b5419` (set by #2513; carried unchanged by #4177/#4200/#4230); its own object re-hashes to it this run (`served_ci/files/dq_next_step.json`, canonical JSON = `08ec68b323112850c4f6d289d0d5a6fc98823c8534765792196eb25f2a1b5419`).\n- Return #4188 (route 170, result, accepted, verified): # Evidence — job #8137 (route 170): the s=17 pairing-multiplicity census **What this changes.** Route 170's held step asked whether the near-tight, balanced covering of the extreme-length killed runs persists past s=13 and whether the incidence excess `sum_q mu_q - L` at `L = K*` is bounded by a constant independent of L. It is now MEASURED, whole period, exact integers. **Step's row s=17** (P=3\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 26, 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":"1267","status":"accepted","final_rung":"proven","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1850","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"1854","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2212","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4066","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4085","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5273","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[26],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/26","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5381/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"f8ab7bfd30264c96aa21b6ae15d9f933e39fada1512e4e4cca62723e132e3c48","name":"analyse_dl.py","bytes":9134},{"sha256":"4de489c0948f579f4938791eb94a15cf1d5c7c095ceb1ca35c222422acb0704d","name":"check_dl.corrupt_exit.txt","bytes":594},{"sha256":"4f7a3a39c158e12341483bedc7a54f0ec2a95c4581f10b73394173dac6a28940","name":"check_dl.out","bytes":1163},{"sha256":"56f08cdffb79d2233c365162381bdddf98889466e7029f9e9765801c23a0fe25","name":"check_dl.py","bytes":14225},{"sha256":"c5ac1ec8e1195def7014f5694e1338653ef37a3d895fdc56322fd1d252dfa40a","name":"evidence_dl.md","bytes":5880},{"sha256":"7f5925e1694e970300c2861aced6cf5dfeecd8255cd07a5e78a822835b521573","name":"facts_dl.json","bytes":5988},{"sha256":"7a9371a84a76b293483fb168713c6a976e9b10416a2eda4a7209b6b9aaf8e6e9","name":"fetch_dl.json","bytes":4882},{"sha256":"f90714b3dea8bd07db971e5392d20cfeb895c4b86663dadc8d23524cdc208bbb","name":"fetch_dl.py","bytes":1911},{"sha256":"013a239b0384fbf15d2b079b8b1381a5d3608d840ec8b5f123af1de0eb9f7b4b","name":"issued_task_dl.json","bytes":1623},{"sha256":"a95afd66134a8b63990d5f4480d6ed16800bbb9682f5b4b398fc11a93dfdef79","name":"journal_scan_dl.json","bytes":66001},{"sha256":"9c6bf641b07cf9b08c02b4002426ebb89c7f9425024c74d693d7b7715c7c7b03","name":"prior_art_dl.md","bytes":3815},{"sha256":"27d88db409b6187c4d5129943bab5e66e44abf1d82e0b91f7df6010392d1c481","name":"recipe_dl.md","bytes":3955},{"sha256":"80ab8f479d5ad40cf0ff1315871f1812296e6d991d91e3d55907a7f5f39f29d9","name":"report_dl.md","bytes":8333},{"sha256":"992745a2a2376b9ae57db438804f621e00ee07b717fb830e45a1393e44fc00cc","name":"scan_journal_dl.py","bytes":3282},{"sha256":"b78ddbd7ba893fe0553795f87c95208dc1ca5061d81e33186160b6fb952b6af8","name":"transcript_dl.md","bytes":5339},{"sha256":"12d8765d0ae5aaec45249e3e128377057f1cbddc010c592bcdafc673615eecc3","name":"CORRECTION_dl.md","bytes":2301},{"sha256":"db04cd170388ad880deac9b9a392e591915e5ec49fe2f144f6d739cdf7e5f55e","name":"check_dl.out","bytes":1195},{"sha256":"56ea8e6cae5181edd5fa1d8e83d7d143a90c18f810232f2d498560bfab8fa137","name":"check_dl.py","bytes":14768},{"sha256":"75caeab01b14c39af38498ad80b6574a69f1e14d4363bf5ffe6118c8e1a5775e","name":"evidence_dl.md","bytes":6219},{"sha256":"6ea7f67ce844b56b118d9de7608b98c08b45b06ba3527b442ed8034b12f826d7","name":"fetch_dl.json","bytes":5485},{"sha256":"343ca648814b6b7dc7895ff91019cea27542b59f1f67a87010fa409d0a5592ee","name":"report_dl.md","bytes":8445},{"sha256":"5beee01543f9bd4fc0aa05d39a65e70bab70f9031b5f10e8d326ed442128785a","name":"CORRECTION_dl.md","bytes":2301},{"sha256":"f4d511ab4561f9fe4c0f46eec0f8a5f3869fce4b547c85b3fffd96820cd881dd","name":"fetch_dl.json","bytes":5683}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"80ab8f479d5ad40cf0ff1315871f1812296e6d991d91e3d55907a7f5f39f29d9","next_step_sha256":"674b74c7b47cc118065b8241b1595ead25d3d5437b78da26521c143aee91b37c","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}