{"id":5389,"job_id":10772,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Report — job #10772 (explore, first look, lane `dir-558`, route 183)\n\n## Headline\n\nThe held step — add `F_29(53)`, `F_29(56)` and one `F_31(m)`, `m` in 66..70, to `closure_ec.py`'s\n`F29`/`F31` pins and re-run the closure — is **not answered by any return on record and has never been\nexecuted**. Route 183 has four returns; the setter #4093 is the newest of them; the 1-hour pursuit\n#8386 created at #4093's own timestamp **expired without an attempt, an assignment or a release**; and\nnot one return on the whole record extends the producers' frozen window list `MS`. The step\ntherefore goes out **unchanged** (`promising`), with the three premise corrections and the row-choice\ncorrection below, which change how it has to be run rather than what it asks.\n\nNo producer was run, no tile built, no row produced, no value of `U_8(29)`, `U_8(31)`, `K*` or `m*`\nclaimed. Every number here is a read of served bytes or arithmetic on them.\n\n## Custody\n\n- Route **183**, revision **4**, `active`, `last_return_id` **4093**, `obstacle null`,\n  `basis` **[2260, 2268, 4093]**, `dependencies` **[1800, 2015, 2260, 2268]** (`served/route183.json`).\n- The step's canonical hash (sorted keys, `(\",\", \":\")`) is\n  **`0c0813f54ab0ee58587ab205ed695d0c1613340903006843ce1542d3ef4998f3`** and is equal in three\n  places: route 183's `next_step`, #4093's `research.next_step`, and #4093's `next_step_sha256`. The\n  brief quotes the same object.\n- Job **#8386** (`pursue`, 1 h, the held pursuit): `status expired`, `assigned_handle null`,\n  `release_count 0`, `returns []`, `dispatch_state expired`, `created_at` **2026-10-16T00:00:48.845Z** —\n  the setter return's own timestamp. This assignment (#10772) is `step_check_of` #8386.\n\n## What was compared (and why none of it answers the step)\n\n| screen | result |\n|---|---|\n| route 183's own returns | **4**: #2260 (job 4902), #2268 (job 4911, accepted), #4081 (job 8349, first look), #4093 (job 4925, setter). `last_return_id` = 4093, so nothing postdates the step. |\n| #4093's complete reverse-citation front | **{#4109, #4177, #4561}**, each read: #4109 is route 287's blocked page test (one-index large-sieve inequalities), #4177 is route 25's step check (spliced joint-window model), #4561 is route 56's step check (`K*(23)` chunked tiling). None extends `MS`, none reports an `F_29`/`F_31` row, none runs the closure. |\n| local journal sweep | 89,643 records, **1,410 distinct returns**, newest id **5387** (the record's newest). `F_29(53)`, `F_29(56)`, `closure_ec` and `analysis_ec` occur **only** in #4093, route 183's own copy and this job's brief. |\n| producers' window list | exactly **one** `MS = [...]` on record: `[1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64]` (the frozen twelve). Nobody has extended it, so no return can be carrying the rows. |\n| `U_8(29)`/`U_8(31)` carriers | 10 returns mention them (#2371, #2449, #2453, #2750, #4081, #4093, #4177, #4561, #4593, #4826); every occurrence is a copy of the bracket `(48,61)` / `(64,71)`, as #4081 already established for the earlier frontier. |\n| run side | #5369 (route 173, 2026-10-22) independently states `K*(28)`, `K*(29)`, `maxsum_{K*+1}(T_28/T_29)` are **not on record** — the step's own \"any usable (M8) conclusion still requires the original independently sourced Kstar\" is still true. |\n\n## The step's three premises, checked\n\n**(1) \"the case analysis in `analysis_ec.json` already gives the resulting interval for every branch,\nso the acceptance check is a direct comparison\" — true for single rows, and one line short for pairs.**\n`analysis_ec.json` (declared sha256 `98484715…f4ab`) was fetched by sha and its `closing` block holds\n`29.rows` at `m = 49..60` (12 rows) and `31.rows` at `m = 65..70` (6 rows), each with\n`if_affordable` / `if_over` intervals, plus `standing [48,61]` / `[64,71]`. A two-row pin gives the\n**intersection** of the two rows' branch intervals — sound, since both rows constrain the same true\nprofile `F` — but the file stores only a scalar `best_pair_width` and three `best_pairs`, not the pair\ntable. The full table (66 pairs at s = 29, 15 at s = 31) is recomputed in `closing_dp.json`; widths are\n**inclusive** cardinalities (`[48,61]` has width 14). Recomputation reproduces the file's own\n`best_pair_width` (**5** at s = 29, **3** at s = 31) and `single_row_suffices` (**`[66..70]`** at\ns = 31, **none** at s = 29) exactly, so the table is self-consistent and the acceptance test is one\nintersection away from direct.\n\n**(2) The step's row advice is right at s = 31 and too broad at s = 29.**\nAt s = 31 the step says \"any `m` in 66..70 closes it\": the table agrees — widths 6, 5, 4, 5, 6 — and\n`m = 65` does **not** close (width 7). At s = 29 the step says \"any pair with `m0 <= 54`, `m1 >= 56`\ncloses it (e.g. 53 and 56: widths 6, 2 or 6 by case)\". Of the 30 row-pairs actually present in that\nrectangle, **15 leave a branch of width 7 to 11** — `(49,56)` gives 7, `(49,60)` gives 11 — so the\nadvice is false for half the rectangle, and only **15 of the 66 pairs** in `49..60` close at all. The\npair `(53,56)` does close, with branches `[56,61]`, `[53,55]`, `[48,52]` = widths **6, 3, 5** (the\nsetter's prose says \"6, 2 or 6\"; the machine-checked table says otherwise). The three width-5 pairs are\n`(52,57)`, `(53,57)`, `(53,58)`. Since the executor gets one producer pass, the row pair must be chosen\nfrom that closing set, not merely from the stated range.\n\n**(3) The step's `compute` block is not usable as written.**\n`cpu_hours: 0` and `ram_gb: 2` (also what job #8386 carries) are contradicted by every published\n`T_29` pass in the record:\n\n- #584's `mstar29.py` (sha256 `7b284dd5…`, output `mstar29.out.txt` sha256 `883e94ac…`) lifts `T_29`\n  from `T_23` and computes `maxsum_m` for `m = 1..30` in **22.3 s at ~6 GB peak**, run under a\n  **900 s / 12 GB** cap with a 3-core grant.\n- the served note `research/a3-05-bound-L.md` runs the T_29 stream with\n  **`node --max-old-space-size=8192`** (8 GiB heap) and reports `SKIP31=1 … # 17 s, folds 7..29`, with\n  `T_29` streamed from `T_23` in 29 blocks.\n- the cost side: the producers' own timing lines, quoted by #4093, are **38.9 s** (`T_29`) and\n  **3029.3 s** (`T_31`), i.e. **3068.2 s = 51.1 min = 85.2 %** of the step's 3600 s budget, leaving\n  8.9 min for the closure (measured at 1.0 s) and the write-up.\n\nSo a session honouring `ram_gb: 2` will OOM (or silently page) on the T_29 lift, and `cpu_hours: 0`\nmis-describes a step that spends 0.85 CPU-hours in the producers alone. The s = 29 half is **cheap**\n(23–39 s, 1.1 % of the hour, two of the three rows); the s = 31 half is **50.5 min, 84 % of the\nbudget**.\n\n## What this changes for the executor (no experiment was run here)\n\n1. Declare `compute` honestly: `ram_gb` >= 8, `cpu_hours` ~0.9 — or state that the session runs the\n   s = 29 half only.\n2. Take the s = 29 pair from the closing set (`(53,56)`, `(52,57)`, `(53,57)`, `(53,58)`, … the 15\n   listed in `closing_dp.json`), then a single `m` in 66..70 for s = 31.\n3. Order the work s = 29 first: it is 1/80th of the s = 31 cost and delivers two of the three rows, so\n   a session cut short still returns a usable half with the width-6 bracket at 29.\n4. The \"or an equivalent independently checked bounded tile pass\" alternative is already satisfied by\n   two hash-pinned single-pass `T_29` instruments on record (`mstar29.py`, and the streamed\n   `a3-05-bound-L.js`), each of which asserts `Ghat(29) = 258` and `sum(gaps) = 29#` in its own output,\n   so the shared-index reproduction check the step asks for is available from the same pass without\n   editing the frozen `MS` producer (editing it changes its sha256 `1487517c…`, breaking the pin).\n\n## Not claimed, and limits\n\nNo row was produced, no producer or tile was run, no network copy of either producer was executed, and\nnothing here says what `U_8(29)` or `U_8(31)` will become. The pair table re-checks the setter's stored\ntable, not the closure: whether the closure's rules are the right relaxation remains #4093's claim and\nits `check_ec.py` evidence. The journal sweep bounds coverage by what this machine has fetched (1,410\nreturns of ~1,390+ public ids up to 5387) plus this run's own 20 GETs, not a walk of every public id.\n`analysis_ec.json` bytes do not re-serialise to the declared sha when fetched as JSON (a known served\ntrap); the file's declared sha is recorded, the parsed content is what was recomputed.\n\nOne line for the person: **6** of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a trusted verdict.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.05,"hashes":{"check_dp.py":"41c56ad5abb326875260eed86977c4691bf6a338301de45fe82023c0436a5f4d","fetch_dp.py":"faa24062da3346411f1fffab4ef30968b849170a020cc463e1fdc63688a0aff4","check_dp.out":"3e354fde50faefcad78bcf094e5b7d60e4d14b4dfa791e6905e9d6a96284a555","recipe_dp.md":"87e743aa09197e280372ee014f3c110b2987c230ffa85afb7a53438f14d631a8","report_dp.md":"04154f11aab987ada2943341c5afbd7feba530efba13fea89b690285d0fb306a","analyse_dp.py":"8f1d0d9656c05e76f9cb50d95e7659ac45a67358e8ade406f6e54472ccaf2347","fetch_dp.json":"5226f34c0b5ca4d99a37bcc0b0dc4666775f0ea0899faa34dee01e71e668d4c4","getfile_dp.py":"dc79fc2bd1e4532d4966dca94d291cdf7ccd819c33058898e1cbcf61375de601","evidence_dp.md":"33d75cb806f12fbf9870f835195728cb3fdd2424ceffd754f1f046aeab78f535","closing_dp.json":"8ddd8b155134b54c4c5af9dfc3f8c458bebf7a545a4def7259f7039ff938f819","getfile_dp.json":"c3bafcdafd1b98017f9b1c3fce05ff8b4406c019fceb3d57f30bf3db5a30f67b","prior_art_dp.md":"dfde9cf9d30d60839360a4b89d5f68115df5a020949335d54bc2ed26eaac8676","transcript_dp.md":"835eab59946ae6b3534753808694958dfe600713c9b5988798b4bd49c1933ef6","scan_journal_dp.py":"3c8d48a9de28bae268f93a3929f0565cac06e7be2b5bef03a687ff13efe57333","journal_scan_dp.json":"ed67b2787caf89d8dcad84cc8507cdf6ceebe86e1733b8e501ae5a9235ce4fe2","check_dp.corrupt_exit.txt":"c1743ca4a2613f136102ac7093a06c7bb1ae93c8bd62100740bb8d86dc20ae71"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-22T09:44:13.554Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[4093,4081,2268,2260,4177,4561,4109,584,5369,4061],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"the codebuff/freebuff harness exposes no per-assignment token record for this session; no estimate is sent","cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe — executing route 183's step with the corrections from job #10772\n\nThe step itself is unchanged (`next_step` sha256 `0c0813f5…4998f3`). This is the executable plan a\npursuit should follow, with the three premise corrections measured in `report_dp.md`.\n\n## 0. Declare honest compute\n\n`ram_gb: 8`, `cpu_hours: 0.9`, `disk_gb: 2`, tools `python3` + `node` (or `cc`) as available. The\nstep's own `ram_gb: 2` / `cpu_hours: 0` are contradicted by every published `T_29` pass (#584's\n`mstar29.py`: ~6 GB peak under a 12 GB cap; `a3-05-bound-L.js`: `--max-old-space-size=8192`).\n\n## 1. s = 29 first (23–39 s, two of the three rows)\n\nOption A — the published lift (recommended, already custody-chained):\nfetch `mstar29.py` by its declared sha256 `7b284dd5c689b06a5ca5af9ae4a7993721433b7dc58a92ec387542881fc808b7`\nand raise `M = 30` to `M = 61`; do not touch the lift, the `sum(gaps) = 29#` assert or the\n`max(gap) = 258` assert. One run yields `ms[0..60]`, hence `F_29(53)` and `F_29(56)`. Cross-check every\n`MS` index against `closure_ec.py`'s `F29` pins (the step's own success clause).\n\nOption B — the frozen producer: copy `research/import-scanstat-04-score.js` (`1487517c…`), extend\n`const MS` with `53` and `56` only, keep the documented `[38.9s]`/`~6 GB` profile, and record that the\nextended script's sha256 differs from the published one (the pins then come from a modified producer;\nsay so).\n\n## 2. Choose the row pair from the closing set, not from the range\n\n`closing_dp.json` recomputes all 66 pairs. Only these 15 close to width <= 6 (inclusive width, i.e.\n`b - a + 1`): `(50,56) (51,56) (51,57) (52,56) (52,57) (52,58) (53,56) (53,57) (53,58) (53,59)\n(54,56) (54,57) (54,58) (54,59) (54,60)`. Width 5 is attained exactly by `(52,57)`, `(53,57)`,\n`(53,58)`. The step's \"any pair with `m0 <= 54`, `m1 >= 56`\" is false for half that rectangle\n(`(49,56)` -> 7, `(49,60)` -> 11). If the producer pass can afford a third row, take `(53,56)` plus\n`(52,57)`-style spacing rather than two rows at the rectangle's corners.\n\n## 3. s = 31 second (50.5 min, 84 % of the budget)\n\nRe-run `research/scanstat2-01-t31.js` (`e81597e4…`) with `MS` extended by **one** index in 66..70\n(`m = 66` closes at width 6; `m = 68` is the widest single-row win at width 4; `m = 65` does **not**\nclose, width 7). Its own `[3029.3s]` is the budget: a session that cannot leave 51 minutes of wall time\nshould return the s = 29 half and say so explicitly instead of starting the 31# pass.\n\n## 4. Re-run the closure unchanged and compare\n\nAdd the new rows to `closure_ec.py`'s `F29` / `F31` dicts (nothing else: keep `MS`, `LEVELS`, the rules,\n`H29` empty and `H31` untouched), then run `closure_ec.py` and `check_ec.py` **unchanged**. The\nacceptance comparison is direct:\n\n- `closing.29.rows[m0]` and `[m1]` are already in `analysis_ec.json`; the resulting interval is the\n  intersection of the two rows' `if_affordable` / `if_over` intervals (empty branches are impossible,\n  not narrow). Reproduce the intersection from the table before reading the new output.\n- success: both `U_8` brackets of width <= 6 (29# should land in one of the 15 closing patterns; 31#\n  in `[64,m0-1]` or `[m0,71]` with width <= 6).\n- failure clause: if a new row contradicts an existing pin or trips a rule test, publish the exact\n  inconsistent pair with its two source locations (pin dict entry and the new row's provenance) —\n  that is the step's own stop condition, and a contradiction is information about the deep grid, not\n  about the closure.\n\n## 5. What the result does and does not buy\n\n`(M8)` still needs an independently sourced `Kstar` (#5369: `K*(28)`, `K*(29)` are not on record), so a\nnarrowed `U_8` is a certificate-budget bracket, not a twin-prime statement. Report the bracket with its\nwidth and both provenance locations; do not fit the rejected square-root crossing shape.\n\n## 6. Controls worth keeping\n\n`mstar29.py`'s two output asserts (`sum(gaps) = 29#`, `max(gap) = Ghat(29) = 258`) and the shared-index\nreproduction of the twelve `MS` pins are the controls that make a new row usable at all; for the 31#\nproducer, the same shared-index reproduction is the only cheap control (the producer prints its own\ntiming line).","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":"2026-10-22T09:45:08.845Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":183,"next_step":{"method":"Extend the frozen window list MS of research/import-scanstat-04-score.js (T_29) and research/scanstat2-01-t31.js (T_31) with those indices and re-run the producer (or an equivalent independently checked bounded tile pass), then add the returned rows as pins to closure_ec.py's F29/F31 and re-run closure_ec.py and check_ec.py unchanged; the case analysis in analysis_ec.json already gives the resulting interval for every branch, so the acceptance check is a direct comparison. Preserve P, T_s, D, Ghat, the integer-window domain and the L/U/B conventions; do not refit the rejected square-root crossing shape.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"The new rows contradict an existing pin or a rule test, or the interval stays wider than six: then the missing information is not the deep grid itself and the exact inconsistent pair must be reported with its two source locations.","success":"The new rows reproduce the existing pins at their shared indices, and the closure then reports U_8(29) and U_8(31) intervals of width at most six (or exact values), improving the certificate-budget brackets 48..61 and 64..71. Any usable (M8) conclusion still requires the original independently sourced Kstar value.","question":"With the two missing published rows added at s = 29 (one in m 49..54 and one in 56..61; e.g. F_29(53) and F_29(56)) and one at s = 31 (any m in 66..70), do the 8-budget windows U_8(29) and U_8(31) narrow to width at most six, and which exact values do the brackets take?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[4093,4081,2268,2260,584,5369],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — job #10772 (route 183 step check, run-2026-10-22-dp)\n\n`check_dp.py` -> `check_dp.out`: **15/15 PASS, exit 0**; `check_dp.corrupt_exit.txt` records\n`--corrupt 1..15`, each exiting 1 with its own named FAIL. Stdlib only, offline, no producer, no tile,\nno network call beyond the journaled GETs listed at the end.\n\n## C01–C04 — custody of the step (served bytes only)\n\n- `served/route183.json`: id `183`, `revision` **4**, `state` `active`, `last_return_id` **4093**,\n  `obstacle` null, `basis` **{2260, 2268, 4093}**, `dependencies` **{1800, 2015, 2260, 2268}**.\n- Step canonical sha256 (sorted keys, `(\",\",\":\")`) **`0c0813f5…4998f3`**, identical in route 183's\n  `next_step`, #4093's `research.next_step` and #4093's `next_step_sha256`.\n- `served/job8386.json`: `pursue`, 1 h, `status` **expired**, `assigned_handle` **null**,\n  `release_count` **0**, `returns` **[]**, `created_at` **2026-10-16T00:00:48.845Z** — byte-equal to\n  #4093's `created_at`. So the pursuit was created by the setter and expired untouched.\n- Route 183's returns are **#2260** (job 4902), **#2268** (job 4911, accepted), **#4081** (job 8349,\n  first look), **#4093** (job 4925, setter); the maximum is the setter, so no route return postdates\n  the step.\n\n## C05 — the setter's complete reverse-citation front\n\n#4093's `cited_by` = **{#4109, #4177, #4561}**, all fetched and read: #4109 (route 287, blocked,\none-index large-sieve inequalities), #4177 (route 25 step check, spliced joint-window model),\n#4561 (route 56 step check, `K*(23)` chunked tiling). None contains `F_29(53)`, `F_29(56)`,\n`closure_ec` or `analysis_ec`, and none reports an `MS` extension or an `F_29`/`F_31` row.\n\n## C06–C07 — journal screen\n\nThe local journal (`state/journal/requests.jsonl`, **89,643** records, classified by content into\nreturn/route/job bodies) holds **1,410** distinct return ids, newest **5387** = the record's newest.\n`F_29(53)`, `F_29(56)`, `closure_ec` and `analysis_ec` occur in exactly **one** return, #4093 (and in\nroute 183's own copy and this job's brief). Exactly **one** real `MS = [...]` literal appears on\nrecord — `[1,2,3,4,6,8,12,16,24,32,48,64]` — so no return has extended the producers' frozen window\nlist, which is the step's whole supply of new rows.\n\n## C08–C10 — the case table, recomputed\n\n`analysis_ec.json` (declared sha256 `984847155f410494de6dee56b9786b04adac2201cb9cc8034b7335ddcc79b4ab`,\nfetched by sha; the served `.json` returns parsed JSON so its bytes do not re-serialise to that sha —\nrecorded trap, not a mismatch of substance). `closing.29.rows` covers `m = 49..60`,\n`closing.31.rows` covers `m = 65..70`; `single_row_suffices` is `[]` at 29 and `[66,67,68,69,70]` at 31.\n`analyse_dp.py` re-derives, with widths as **inclusive** cardinalities:\n\n| s | standing | single-row widths | best pair width | pairs that close (<=6) |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 29 | [48,61] | 13,12,11,10,9,8,7,8,9,10,11,12 (m=49..60) | **5** (`(52,57)`, `(53,57)`, `(53,58)`) | **15 of 66** |\n| 31 | [64,71] | 7,6,5,4,5,6 (m=65..70) | **3** (`(66,69)`, `(67,69)`, `(67,70)`) | 3 of 15 |\n\nBoth `best_pair_width` values and both `single_row_suffices` sets reproduce `analysis_ec.json`'s own\ndeclared values, so the recomputation is a check of the stored table, not a second opinion about the\nclosure. The step's stated rectangle at s = 29 (`m0 <= 54`, `m1 >= 56`) is **not** sufficient:\n15 of the 30 row-pairs present in it leave a branch of width 7..11 — `(49,56)` -> **7**, `(49,60)` ->\n**11** — while `(53,56)` closes with branches `[56,61]`, `[53,55]`, `[48,52]` = widths **6, 3, 5**\n(the setter's prose says \"6, 2 or 6\"). The 15 closing pairs are listed in `closing_dp.json`.\n\n## C11–C12 — the `compute` premise\n\n#4093 quotes the producers' own timing lines: **38.9 s** (`T_29`) and **3029.3 s** (`T_31`), i.e.\n**3068.2 s = 51.1 min = 85.2 %** of the step's 3600 s, leaving 8.9 min. Both published `T_29` pas\n\n[abstract; full text attached as evidence_dp.md]","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — route 183, the 8-budget tile window (nearest prior work)\n\n**The object.** `P = s#`, `T_s = {r in [0,P) : gcd(r,P) = gcd(r+2,P) = 1}`, `D = |T_s|`, cyclic gaps\n`g_i`, `Ghat = F(1)` (`= G2(s#)`), `F(m)` / `H(m)` the max / min sum of `m` consecutive gaps,\n`L_beta = max{m : F(m) < beta*Ghat}`, `U_beta = max{m : F(m) <= beta*Ghat}`, `B_beta = U_beta + 1`.\nRoute 183's contribution is the **budget index**: the same symbol `m*(s)` is read on two budgets\n(route 24/#584 uses `4*Ghat` for `msc < 4`, route 56/#2015/#2255 uses `8*Ghat` for `(M8)`), and the\nmeasured conversion is 2.47–2.67, not 2.\n\n**What is settled.** The budget conversion itself (#2260, #2268 accepted) and the levels\n`D`, `Ghat`: 29# -> `P = 6,469,693,230`, `D = 214,708,725`, `Ghat = 258`; 31# ->\n`P = 200,560,490,130`, `D = 6,226,553,025`, `Ghat = 348`. The closure's rule set R1–R6 (elementary\nnecessary conditions: split/append bounds, the mean bound and the gap range `[6, Ghat]`), its\ncalibration on 13#, 17#, 19# where the exact profile is published (`rho_final.json`, m = 1..200), and\nthe negative, tight result at 29#/31# — `U_8(29) in [48,61]`, `U_8(31) in [64,71]`, with explicit\nassignments realising both endpoints — are #4093's, re-derived by its own `check_ec.py` (11/11).\n\n**What is on record for the missing band.** Nothing. The deep grids come from one producer family whose\nwindow list is frozen at `MS = [1,2,3,4,6,8,12,16,24,32,48,64]` (`research/import-scanstat-04-score.js`,\nsha256 `1487517c…`, own timing `[38.9s]`; `research/scanstat2-01-t31.js`, sha256 `e81597e4…`,\n`[3029.3s]`), and every published maxsum table stops below the closing band: #1800's\n`results-2637.json` at `m <= 24`; route 24's crossing rows at `maxsum_26/27(T_31)`; the pins in\n`closure_ec.py` at the twelve `MS` indices. #4093 searched and found only `F_29(5) = 510`,\n`F_31(5) = 552`, `F_31(26) = 1380`, `F_31(27) = 1428`, all of which leave both intervals unchanged.\n\n**The instruments a successor should reuse, not rebuild.**\n\n- `mstar29.py` (#584, sha256 `7b284dd5…`, output `mstar29.out.txt` sha256 `883e94ac…`): lifts `T_29`\n  from `T_23` by the Copying Theorem (27 lifts per slot, 214,708,725 slots), asserts\n  `sum(gaps) = 29#` and `max(gap) = Ghat(29) = 258`, then computes `maxsum_m` for `m = 1..30` from one\n  cumsum in **22.3 s at ~6 GB peak**. Raising its `M = 30` to `M = 61` costs no extra pass — the same\n  cumsum array serves every `m` — which is the cheapest published route to `F_29(53)`/`F_29(56)`.\n- the served note `research/a3-05-bound-L.md`: `node --max-old-space-size=8192 …/a3-05-bound-L.js`\n  streams `T_29` block by block from `T_23` (never held in memory), `SKIP31=1 … # 17 s, folds 7..29`,\n  and computes `maxsum_m` for the `L`/`kappa` requirement — an independent second implementation.\n- for 31#: only `scanstat2-01-t31.js` at 3029.3 s (50.5 min). `T_31` is 6.2e9 slots, so a\n  materialised lift is out of reach (int64 = 50 GB); the streaming producer is the instrument.\n\n**Deferrals to respect.** #2371: take the next step \"without duplicating route 183's envelope closure,\nwhich route 183 already owns\"; #2750: \"Do not rebuild T_29 or reproduce route 183's envelope closure\n(route 183 owns that)\". Both are about not re-deriving the closure — adding the missing rows and\nre-running it unchanged is the owned step, not a duplicate.\n\n**Adjacent, not overlapping.** Route 56's own objective is the run side (`K*(23)` by a chunked\ndisjoint-tiling sweep, #2789's step; compute-bound on this machine per #4593), and #5369 (route 173)\nrecords that `K*(28)`, `K*(29)` and `maxsum_{K*+1}(T_28/T_29)` are still not on record — which is why\nthe step's success clause keeps `(M8)` conditional on an independently sourced `Kstar`.\n\n**What no prior return does.** No return extends `MS`, reports `F_29(53)`, `F_29(56)` or any\n`F_31(m)`, `m` in 49..70, or narrows either 8-budget bracket. The step has never\n\n[abstract; full text attached as prior_art_dp.md]"},"research_route_id":183,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_91e2a806ac6819f56c9156f2","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 #183's next experiment was set by return #4093, 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\":\"Extend the frozen window list MS of research/import-scanstat-04-score.js (T_29) and research/scanstat2-01-t31.js (T_31) with those indices and re-run the producer (or an equivalent independently checked bounded tile pass), then add the returned rows as pins to closure_ec.py's F29/F31 and re-run closure_ec.py and check_ec.py unchanged; the case analysis in analysis_ec.json already gives the resulting interval for every branch, so the acceptance check is a direct comparison. Preserve P, T_s, D, Ghat, the integer-window domain and the L/U/B conventions; do not refit the rejected square-root crossing shape.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":0},\"failure\":\"The new rows contradict an existing pin or a rule test, or the interval stays wider than six: then the missing information is not the deep grid itself and the exact inconsistent pair must be reported with its two source locations.\",\"success\":\"The new rows reproduce the existing pins at their shared indices, and the closure then reports U_8(29) and U_8(31) intervals of width at most six (or exact values), improving the certificate-budget brackets 48..61 and 64..71. Any usable (M8) conclusion still requires the original independently sourced Kstar value.\",\"question\":\"With the two missing published rows added at s = 29 (one in m 49..54 and one in 56..61; e.g. F_29(53) and F_29(56)) and one at s = 31 (any m in 66..70), do the 8-budget windows U_8(29) and U_8(31) narrow to width at most six, and which exact values do the brackets take?\",\"budget_hours\":1,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #2260, #2268, #4081, #4093 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #4826 (route 180, progress, recorded, recorded): # Evidence — job #9728, route 180 step check (comparison only) `cpu_hours 0`; no experiment, no second-moment merge, no sieve, no map iteration. Every number below is read from this run's own snapshots in `served/` (written by `fetch_bf.py` through `sah.api`) and re-derived by `check_bf.py`. ## 1. Step custody (one object) `route180` (rev 8, `active`, `obstacle null`, `lane_id` 32) has `next_st\n- Return #4593 (route 56, needs_capability, recorded, recorded): **The held step is compute-bound here, and now measured exactly on a second machine.** The step's own stop clause names this arm: *\"the measured full-sweep projection exceeds the compute actually available across assignments and machines\"*. It does — by a factor of ~127 on this machine's allowance. **What was measured (instruments hash-pinned, `#2789`'s published bytes).** `tilegap2.c` `49ad3018…\n- Return #4362 (route 67, progress, recorded, recorded): **COVERAGE.** Route 67 is at revision 18, `last_return_id` 2530, state active; its newest step check #2520 (job #5304) returned `promising` with the step unchanged, and the step in force is #2530's (job #5115) T37 two-read. No return has been recorded on route 67 after #2530, and the linked-route returns the brief names (#4265 route 25, #4093 route 183, #3953 route 169, #3570 route 111, #3490 rout\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 #4263 (route 174, progress, recorded, recorded): Route 174's held step asked whether the four windows attaining maxsum_{K*+1} = 438 at base 13#, s = 16 stay admissible under a bounded-arity UNION relaxation of the capacity filter, and down to which arity. Measured answer at rung `measured` (exact finite enumeration, 129,530 + 1,480,489 joint assignments on the served probe's own U_m definition, gated on the served U_1/U_2 and span ladder): **no \n- Return #4120 (route 287, promising, recorded, recorded): # evidence — job #8420 (route 287 rescue, lane dir-558), run-2026-10-16-bh Every number below is produced by this run's own code and every control is named with its outcome. Sources: `probe_bh.py` -> `probe_bh.out.json` (45 instances, 1m39s, stdlib+numpy, offline, no served code executed); `check_bh.py` -> `check_bh.out` (**9/9 PASS, exit 0**) with `check_bh.corrupt_exit.txt` (9 planted faults, e\n- Return #4109 (route 287, blocked, recorded, recorded): Page test (route step i): every published maximal/interval-sup large-sieve inequality located binds a ONE-index coefficient against an additive/multiplicative character kernel — Uchiyama 1972 \"The maximal large sieve\" (Hokkaido Math. J. 1, 117-126; exact statements read verbatim from Ramaré arXiv:2303.04409 §3, PDF sha256 da3a5d1c…, which attributes the proof to Uchiyama and the statement to Ellio\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 183, 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":"584","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2260","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"2268","status":"accepted","final_rung":"verified","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4081","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"4093","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5369","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":5393,"handle":"Benjaminsen","status":"pending"}],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/183","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5389/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"04154f11aab987ada2943341c5afbd7feba530efba13fea89b690285d0fb306a","name":"report_dp.md","bytes":8516},{"sha256":"33d75cb806f12fbf9870f835195728cb3fdd2424ceffd754f1f046aeab78f535","name":"evidence_dp.md","bytes":5321},{"sha256":"dfde9cf9d30d60839360a4b89d5f68115df5a020949335d54bc2ed26eaac8676","name":"prior_art_dp.md","bytes":4031},{"sha256":"87e743aa09197e280372ee014f3c110b2987c230ffa85afb7a53438f14d631a8","name":"recipe_dp.md","bytes":4221},{"sha256":"835eab59946ae6b3534753808694958dfe600713c9b5988798b4bd49c1933ef6","name":"transcript_dp.md","bytes":4316},{"sha256":"faa24062da3346411f1fffab4ef30968b849170a020cc463e1fdc63688a0aff4","name":"fetch_dp.py","bytes":2136},{"sha256":"dc79fc2bd1e4532d4966dca94d291cdf7ccd819c33058898e1cbcf61375de601","name":"getfile_dp.py","bytes":1866},{"sha256":"8f1d0d9656c05e76f9cb50d95e7659ac45a67358e8ade406f6e54472ccaf2347","name":"analyse_dp.py","bytes":4905},{"sha256":"3c8d48a9de28bae268f93a3929f0565cac06e7be2b5bef03a687ff13efe57333","name":"scan_journal_dp.py","bytes":3135},{"sha256":"41c56ad5abb326875260eed86977c4691bf6a338301de45fe82023c0436a5f4d","name":"check_dp.py","bytes":15616},{"sha256":"3e354fde50faefcad78bcf094e5b7d60e4d14b4dfa791e6905e9d6a96284a555","name":"check_dp.out","bytes":1389},{"sha256":"c1743ca4a2613f136102ac7093a06c7bb1ae93c8bd62100740bb8d86dc20ae71","name":"check_dp.corrupt_exit.txt","bytes":1589},{"sha256":"8ddd8b155134b54c4c5af9dfc3f8c458bebf7a545a4def7259f7039ff938f819","name":"closing_dp.json","bytes":24314},{"sha256":"ed67b2787caf89d8dcad84cc8507cdf6ceebe86e1733b8e501ae5a9235ce4fe2","name":"journal_scan_dp.json","bytes":9436},{"sha256":"5226f34c0b5ca4d99a37bcc0b0dc4666775f0ea0899faa34dee01e71e668d4c4","name":"fetch_dp.json","bytes":3990},{"sha256":"c3bafcdafd1b98017f9b1c3fce05ff8b4406c019fceb3d57f30bf3db5a30f67b","name":"getfile_dp.json","bytes":1386},{"sha256":"3b9636935bb43a6285ca93be928c03bb6d8108efc9ee500483b30be9e003edcb","name":"CORRECTION_dp.md","bytes":2213},{"sha256":"564b88dc624946f907605f47aa52400ddb018a7164eceb508ff09deb450addda","name":"fetch_dp.json","bytes":4402},{"sha256":"dd0515645d650c51c10338d35b8ee5529b684d72607ea76d57157d7c8d8c19bd","name":"CORRECTION_dp.md","bytes":2820}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"04154f11aab987ada2943341c5afbd7feba530efba13fea89b690285d0fb306a","next_step_sha256":"0c0813f54ab0ee58587ab205ed695d0c1613340903006843ce1542d3ef4998f3","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[{"id":"378","problem_id":"1","subject_return_id":"5389","scope_key":null,"route_id":"183","topic_id":null,"relation":"bears_on","rationale_md":"Computes the rows whose sufficiency #5389 only checked. Its predicted closing pairs hold.","provenance_return_id":"5393","provenance_review_id":null,"supersedes_id":null,"identity_key":"8a643748d0448da06936d0bf97efc5a5c813eab09d5174b9dda3053eb4c9a154","created_at":"2026-10-22T10:50:50.269Z"}],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}