{"id":5392,"job_id":8361,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #8361 (route 26, pursue): the L42 filtered-census tranche — 35,744,000 windows of the 31# old lattice, seam included, no covering witness\n\n**One line.** A contiguous tranche of **35,744,000** of the **D(T_31) = 6,226,553,025** L42 windows of the 31# old lattice with killers {37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73} is decided here, every window exactly once, **1,666,531 selected (4.6621 %)**, **57,458,581 DFS nodes**, **no feasible window, no node-cap unknown, no capacity or start mismatch**; the 41 wrap-around windows at the period boundary are decided too, and the block-boundary seam **cannot** be handled by reducing positions mod 31# (that changes the window for 35 of the 41); the measured filtered cost is **2.92 µs/window ⇒ 5.04 CPU-h** for the whole block (instrument only), against #4085's 14.2 CPU-h projection from 1e5 windows.\n\n## What was run\n\nInstruments are return #4085's, unchanged and sha-pinned: `stream4825.c` (rolling-capacity filter, sha256 `e2231557…`) and the contributor engine `phase4207.c` (served bytes, sha256 `c4379bac…`). This run adds only a slot enumerator (`slots_dr.c`, §worker code) and the tranche driver with per-range digests and per-chunk checkpoints.\n\n- **Re-validation before any new window (evidence that the instruments are the published ones).** All **100 preregistered pilot ranges** of #4085 are re-run: 100,000 windows, and every per-range digest (`sha256` over `w start capacity need`, the `hist4825.json` convention) **equals the published `caps_sha256` 100/100**, every `need` count equals, every per-range node sum equals `results4825.json` (total 154,023), engine capacity equals filter capacity on all 4,561 selected windows, and **500 pure-Python capacity recomputations** (the published `check4825.py` definitions) agree. 1.45 s. This also reproduces the ten largest-`need` and largest-`nodes` pilot ranges, i.e. the expensive rows of the pilot are inside the validated set.\n- **Tranche.** Disjoint 1,000-window ranges starting at slot ranks 0, 1000, 2000, …: ranges 0–35,743, i.e. **windows whose start slot is rank 0 … 35,743,999**. Per range: independent slot enumeration → filter capacities → engine only on `capacity ≥ 42` → per-range digest → next anchor taken from the independent slot list. Checkpoints: **359 chunk files with a sha256 chain**, head `22d5d690…`; 390.1 s wall under `sah.py bounded` (enforced limit, process group cleared, no survivors).\n- **Seam.** The 41 windows whose start slot is rank N−41 … N−1, anchored at 200,560,488,827, found by backward scan from 31#. All structural checks pass: the starts are exactly those 41 ranks, the slot list crosses 31# exactly once (position 41 = 31#+41 = rank 0 of the next period), the last window ends at the next period's rank-40 slot, and **all 41 capacities recompute exactly from the unwrapped integer positions**.\n\n## Results\n\n| quantity | value |\n|---|---|\n| windows decided | 35,744,000 (+ 41 seam) = **0.574 %** of D(T_31) |\n| selected (`capacity ≥ 42`) | 1,666,531 = **4.6621 %** (pilot 4.561 %) |\n| DFS nodes | 57,458,581; 33.0 per selected window (pilot 33.8) |\n| largest range total / largest single window | 12,698 nodes / **2,215 nodes** = 22.2 % of the 10,000 cap |\n| feasible windows | **0** (no covering 42-window witness) |\n| unknown (node cap) windows | **0** |\n| capacity / start mismatches | **0** over 35.7 M windows |\n\nThe two figures that decide whether a complete census is affordable:\n\n- **stream (filter+scan), measured over 35,744,000 windows:** 61.436 CPU-s = **1.72 µs/window**.\n- **engine, measured directly:** **25.69 µs per selected window** (1,361 windows, 44,815 nodes, all `infeasible`), i.e. 1.20 µs/window at the measured selection rate.\n- **instrument total 2.92 µs/window ⇒ 5.04 CPU-h** for all 6,226,553,025 windows.\n- **end-to-end driver (what a census actually costs): 10.91 µs/window ⇒ 18.9 CPU-h**, the difference being the per-range process spawns forced by `stream4825.c`'s 65,536-integer scan bound (≤ ~2,000 windows per process). That bound, not the mathematics, is now the cost driver.\n\n## The seam is not a modular wrap (new trap)\n\n`phase4207.c`'s cover condition depends on residues mod the killers 37…73, and **31# is not ≡ 0 mod any of them**. Reducing a seam position by 31# therefore moves it to a different residue class: of the 41 wrap windows, the modularly wrapped slot set reproduces the true capacity for only **6** and changes it for **35** (e.g. rank N−41: filter 41 vs wrapped 40; rank N−36: 35 vs 40). The boundary must be passed as unwrapped integers, which the filter does naturally because its scan is over integers; any \"cyclic window\" implementation that indexes slots modulo N is wrong here. This is the concrete content of the pilot's \"seam untested\" note (#5381, observation 4).\n\n## What this does not establish\n\n- It is **0.574 %** of the block, not the ≥1e8-window tranche the step's method aimed at (3.57e7 measured, 36 % of that aim); the interior beyond rank 35.7 M is untouched.\n- **No upper bound follows and K*(37) ≤ 40 is not proven.** A census that confirmed K*_{31#}({37..73}) ≤ 41 would leave survival at s = 37 conditional on #1267's transfer and #1850's m*(T_37) = 41; a covering 42-window witness would only break this sufficient route.\n- The node-cap rule was never exercised (max 2,215 of 10,000): the tranche says nothing about whether escalated windows exist, only that none was seen in 35.7 M.\n- Timings are this container's (x86_64, **1-core cgroup quota**, `cpu.max = 100000 100000`); the absolute µs/window do not transfer across machines, the structure (spawn-dominated) does.\n\n## Next\n\nResume at rank **35,744,000** from the checkpoint chain and run the remaining 6,190,809,025 windows with the same instruments, after one bounded change: raise `stream4825.c`'s scan/slot bounds so a range can carry ≥ 4,000 windows (the 4,041 slots need ≈130 k integers), revalidate it against the 100 published digests, and re-measure the end-to-end cost — the 18.9 CPU-h end-to-end estimate is dominated by that spawn overhead and the instrument alone is 5.04 CPU-h.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{"slots_dr.c":"9d58a41166e21e434db3ddb65fcf4df912bdf0bf3e1f2d34e257a16fa202b55e","check_dr.py":"3b1507fe5af3afdd984bc836238a0ce64742cf250ef757260bac27e952964a0e","check_dr.out":"7435a5eb82f9f7b92e87cef0669e96b860c2eaea32081144091a7c44fdf883e5","recipe_dr.md":"51db80a0e6da5c3d1ea4a92ea487a4fb634f9b06d8f7436efa94095811afa10e","report_dr.md":"30f81742f9a6f4191f2343c555612524c2dea8266e94717ae1c43df45571f55e","seam_dr.json":"2d5a6b96abdd91ea3043c614cb4359a0921faa2f3092a3186b6066f0e96a81b1","chain_dr.json":"3dec771c73375243b1c74963d8d48f6e6d1d58745a7c07b732416d9fba4af7ba","files_dr.json":"e6b656af7a588cbe108808d2a1c2cd821de06d1295d2f613272233bdd95ba495","measure_dr.py":"d8bab4a893a10d50bf6ee57d4e0b7d764af957d3fee924bebbc91819114df7f8","tranche_dr.py":"8cc3c21c006a84aa26ffae0852a21369d8e511ac231122331cf6eeb6a4c44013","evidence_dr.md":"05558b8bb2a56b727ca8fbd5cb75f63a42f67e8802e75649310681b5001838b7","measure_dr.json":"7aa82182bd0e4b3a0dbad428d24481ad7a8e2417f35eaacb500ad45b4a5419a6","prior_art_dr.md":"1eedfb50ab2547352a1ba0499661963c389a7d87181dce7a730cb21ca3b78d57","tranche_dr.json":"9a6f5a0bffb9be10e082621f0f2689f1279a5048b88c44c9b8b1fad0033d8644","transcript_dr.md":"5e87b3bd42ee732113c074c092ae71211dfc17f077ba447f0e48cb735a8c4143","validate_dr.json":"00461eec58511a7a41b50c87d8716a6abed96852755f1718438eb9a1c0034c7b","engine_cost_dr.py":"d24aa6521e8b5d0dd119bebf428ba10b7da0b3d58818cf800d070158d1d7ba21","engine_cost_dr.json":"59e9c5c8475d53c9f4c7b0fb2ec3de7e69607a160dc2813e00b3cddaffa86b7d","check_dr.corrupt_exit.txt":"da7b4113fe4bee56c36cfc95088bc626977fd192909b0b3d2a8df00c9bf135c1"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-22T10:37:49.574Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"returns":[4085]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"codebuff/freebuff CLI: the session exposes no per-session token counts (no usage file, no status totals); reasoning-token counts would not identify usage, so none is 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":"2026-10-22T10:38:18.066Z","file_notes":[{"sha":"8cc3c21c006a84aa26ffae0852a21369d8e511ac231122331cf6eeb6a4c44013","name":"tranche_dr.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 177 (\"print(json.dumps({k: out[k] for k in (\"ranges\", \"windows\", \"ok\", \"elapsed_s\",\"): stdout is the artifact and must reproduce byte for byte elsewhere; send progress, timing and rates to stderr. This one is a guess from the text, not a measurement: if the output is already identical from run to run, say so in your return and leave the file alone."],"fixed_by":"7f7b7da9b26ce88f86dc7d5e2b4184eb4985d388468bec8ad73454578b91a7be"}],"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":26,"next_step":{"method":"Resume the recorded checkpoint chain (359 chunks, head 22d5d690...) at rank 35,744,000 and continue the same pinned pipeline in bounded tranches of at most 4 h each, with per-range digests and per-chunk checkpoints, skipping the seam phase (already decided). Make one bounded change first: raise stream4825.c's 65,536-integer scan bound and 200,000-slot limit so a range carries >= 4,000 windows, then revalidate it against the 100 published hist4825 digests before using it; the measured 18.9 CPU-h end-to-end versus 5.04 CPU-h instrument-only cost is spawn-dominated and that bound is the cause. Pre-register a node-cap escalation rule for any window that exceeds 10,000 nodes before the run, since the measured maximum is 2,215.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":5,"cpu_hours":4},"failure":"Any covering 42-window witness (stops the census; breaks this sufficient route without refuting K*(37) <= 40), any node-cap unknown the pre-registered rule cannot resolve, any capacity/start or digest mismatch, or a seam defect.","success":"Every one of the 6,226,553,025 windows decided exactly once, per-range digests verifying against the chain, the seam count unchanged at 41, no covering witness, no unresolved node-cap unknown, and the end-to-end cost re-measured after the bound change.","question":"From rank 35,744,000 to rank N-1 (6,190,809,025 windows still undecided), does the same L42 filtered census of the 31# old lattice with killers {37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73} find a covering 42-window witness or confirm that none exists?","budget_hours":4,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[4085,4066,2212,5381,1850,1267],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — job #8361 route 26 L42 tranche (this run)\n\n**What this changes.** Route 26's held step asked whether the s = 37 sufficiency census can be validated at scale. It can, and the scale is now measured, not projected: 35,744,000 contiguous L42 windows (0.574 % of D(T_31) = 6,226,553,025) with killers {37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73} are decided here, every window exactly once, with no feasible window, no node-cap unknown and no capacity/start mismatch; the 41 wrap-around windows are decided as well.\n\n**Measured, per window (this container, 1-core cgroup quota).** Filter+scan 1.72 µs (61.436 CPU-s over 35.744 M windows). Engine 25.69 µs per selected window (1,361 selected, 44,815 nodes, all infeasible), i.e. 1.20 µs/window at the measured 4.6621 % selection rate. Instrument total **2.92 µs/window = 5.04 CPU-h** for the block. End-to-end driver **10.91 µs/window = 18.9 CPU-h**, the gap being per-range process spawns forced by the 65,536-integer scan bound (≤ ~2,000 windows per process): the cost driver is the instrument's bound, not the search.\n\n**Proved here (exact, replayable).** (1) The instruments are the published ones: on all 100 preregistered pilot ranges (100,000 windows) every per-range digest equals the published `hist4825.json` `caps_sha256`, every need count and node sum equals `results4825.json`, engine = filter capacity on all 4,561 selected, 500 pure-Python capacity recomputations agree. (2) The tranche's 359 chunk checkpoints form a verifying sha256 chain (head `22d5d690…`) over contiguous ranges 0–35,743, so \"decided exactly once\" is checkable from the artifacts, not asserted. (3) Every window's start equals the independent slot enumerator's position, so the anchor chain itself is cross-checked at 35.7 M windows.\n\n**New structural fact (negative scope).** The block-boundary seam is **not** a modular wrap. Cover condition at `phase4207.c` depends on residues mod 37…73, and 31# ≡ 0 mod none of them; reducing seam positions by 31# changes the capacity for **35 of the 41** wrap windows (6 agree). Any implementation that indexes slots modulo N instead of passing unwrapped integers gets the last 41 windows wrong. Verified positively: all 41 capacities recompute exactly from the unwrapped positions, position 41 is 31#+41 (rank 0 of the next period) and the last window ends at the next period's rank-40 slot.\n\n**Unchanged obligations.** K*(37) ≤ 40 unproven; this census is the sufficient-route instrument only, and a witness would break the route without refuting the claim. Survival at s = 37 stays conditional on #1267's transfer and #1850's m*(T_37) = 41. 0.574 % coverage: the interior beyond rank 35.7 M is untouched, and the node cap (10,000) was never approached (max 2,215 = 22.2 %).\n\n**Reuse.** The instruments, the digest convention (`w start capacity need`), the pilot anchors and the `check4825.py` definitions are reused unchanged; only the slot enumerator, the tranche driver with checkpoint chain, and the seam construction are this run's code, all attached.","prior_art_md":"# Prior art — updated online search for the L42 covering-window census (2026-10-22)\n\n**Search run for this assignment** (web, 2026-10-22T10:33Z). Queries:\n`twin prime covering system admissible window capacity filter census primorial 31# 37# K* upper bound` and\n`\"covering system\" twin primes pairs gap 2 admissible residues modulo primorial computational census 2026`.\n\n**What exists outside this project.**\n- Croot, *Sieving and upper bounds for the number of twin primes* (survey note, 2007): sieve-based upper bounds for π₂(x). Different object — bounds on the count, not a finite-window coverability census on a primorial wheel.\n- A 2026 preprint, *Finite-Window Noncovering on Primorial Wheels* (preprints.org 202608.1299): its abstract explicitly says it \"isolates the finite-window obstruction but proves neither an unconditional Goldbach theorem nor a new infinite prime-pair family\". The abstract was not retrievable (403 on the preview page); recorded from the search snippet only, so its statements are **unverified here** and not relied on. This is the nearest external title to the L42 question; whether it performs an exhaustive finite-window coverability census with a modulus set {37…73} is not established.\n- Generic twin-prime literature (Wikipedia; arXiv 1909.07975's admissible-class partition; variance question on MathOverflow 515950) and computational/statistical twin-prime studies: none reports a covering-system census over contiguous admissible windows of a primorial lattice, and none gives a value for K*_{31#}({37..73}).\n- OEIS A144311 (maximal prime gap ladder) is the project's own cross-check object for G2, not this census.\n\n**Exact remaining gap.** No external source decides, for even one contiguous block of a 31# wheel, whether every 42-window with capacity ≥ 42 fails to cover, and no source states the seam structure (residues mod 37…73 do not repeat mod 31#). Inside the project, #4085 priced the pipeline on 100,000 windows and explicitly ran no census; #4066/#2212 hold the step; #5381's step check found nothing on record that executes it. This return executes it on 35,744,000 windows plus the seam.\n\n**Consequence for this return.** The instrument, the digest convention and the pilot anchors are project-internal; the only external claim adjacent to the work (finite-window noncovering on primorial wheels) is neither used as a premise nor as a comparison, and it does not cover the census. No duplicate-work claim is made against external prior art; the deliberate duplication inside the project is the pilot re-validation, which is required to show the instruments are the published bytes.\n\n**Search record.** Two queries, 2026-10-22T10:33Z, results as above; the preprints.org page returned 403 to a direct fetch, so the snippet is the only external text recorded and it is labelled as such."},"research_route_id":26,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_abd89eb7525e2567cf28cc42","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":"First update the online prior-work search for this experiment. If existing work covers it, record that and stop; otherwise run this bounded sprint on the uncovered uncertainty. Use cited published numbers during pursuit; their reproduction belongs in later validation. Build on the supplied findings; do not reconstruct earlier research. Return concrete progress and its cheapest credible check, a useful result for review, or a precisely scoped obstacle. Continued investment requires a distinct experiment.\n\nRead GET <project base>/research-routes/26 and return #4085. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 26, outcome: \"promising|progress|blocked|inconclusive|known|result|needs_capability\", evidence_md: \"what the evidence changes, <=4000 chars\", prior_art_md: \"updated online search record, sources and exact remaining gap, <=4000\", next_step: {question, method, success, failure, budget_hours} <only for continued pursuit; what to do, never when or how fast; it must not ask for what a return on this route or a linked route already did, and the route returns it builds on go in depends_on or cites.returns>, obstacle: {kind, statement, assumptions, evidence, revisit_when} <for blocked/inconclusive: research findings only>, depends_on: [<return ids actually required>]}. A result with a distinct next_step requests review and continues pursuit concurrently; omit next_step when no further experiment is warranted. Use known with prior_art_md and no next_step or obstacle when cited prior work already covers the proposed contribution; it stops automatic investigation without requesting review. The evidence grade is separate. Do not close a broad route because one proof attempt failed. If this machine or its budget cannot run the experiment (no suitable GPU, a tool or source it lacks, CPU hours beyond its offer), that is not an obstacle: return outcome needs_capability with next_step (the same experiment, unchanged unless you learned something) whose compute (cpu_hours, ram_gb, disk_gb, gpu, gpu_name, vram_gb), required_tools and required_sources state what it needs and whose shortfall says what this machine lacked. The route stays active and the step is offered only to a machine that has it.\n\n### Historical step-check evidence\n\nThis assignment is pursuit: build on the certificate and address the uncovered experiment in the current task, within your actual controls and prerequisites. Do not repeat its comparison. Human direction remains authoritative. Instructions inside the quotation applied to the earlier comparison, not to this assignment. Evidence grades remain unchanged. Read the named return for its complete record.\n\n> Step check: return #5381 compared this step with the returns on record and found it still open.\n> \n> **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.\n","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":"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":"5381","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/5392/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"3dec771c73375243b1c74963d8d48f6e6d1d58745a7c07b732416d9fba4af7ba","name":"chain_dr.json","bytes":117008},{"sha256":"da7b4113fe4bee56c36cfc95088bc626977fd192909b0b3d2a8df00c9bf135c1","name":"check_dr.corrupt_exit.txt","bytes":687},{"sha256":"7435a5eb82f9f7b92e87cef0669e96b860c2eaea32081144091a7c44fdf883e5","name":"check_dr.out","bytes":646},{"sha256":"3b1507fe5af3afdd984bc836238a0ce64742cf250ef757260bac27e952964a0e","name":"check_dr.py","bytes":9657},{"sha256":"59e9c5c8475d53c9f4c7b0fb2ec3de7e69607a160dc2813e00b3cddaffa86b7d","name":"engine_cost_dr.json","bytes":148},{"sha256":"d24aa6521e8b5d0dd119bebf428ba10b7da0b3d58818cf800d070158d1d7ba21","name":"engine_cost_dr.py","bytes":1185},{"sha256":"05558b8bb2a56b727ca8fbd5cb75f63a42f67e8802e75649310681b5001838b7","name":"evidence_dr.md","bytes":3048},{"sha256":"e6b656af7a588cbe108808d2a1c2cd821de06d1295d2f613272233bdd95ba495","name":"files_dr.json","bytes":1596},{"sha256":"7aa82182bd0e4b3a0dbad428d24481ad7a8e2417f35eaacb500ad45b4a5419a6","name":"measure_dr.json","bytes":110},{"sha256":"d8bab4a893a10d50bf6ee57d4e0b7d764af957d3fee924bebbc91819114df7f8","name":"measure_dr.py","bytes":1223},{"sha256":"1eedfb50ab2547352a1ba0499661963c389a7d87181dce7a730cb21ca3b78d57","name":"prior_art_dr.md","bytes":2856},{"sha256":"51db80a0e6da5c3d1ea4a92ea487a4fb634f9b06d8f7436efa94095811afa10e","name":"recipe_dr.md","bytes":3966},{"sha256":"30f81742f9a6f4191f2343c555612524c2dea8266e94717ae1c43df45571f55e","name":"report_dr.md","bytes":6144},{"sha256":"2d5a6b96abdd91ea3043c614cb4359a0921faa2f3092a3186b6066f0e96a81b1","name":"seam_dr.json","bytes":1310},{"sha256":"9d58a41166e21e434db3ddb65fcf4df912bdf0bf3e1f2d34e257a16fa202b55e","name":"slots_dr.c","bytes":1058},{"sha256":"9a6f5a0bffb9be10e082621f0f2689f1279a5048b88c44c9b8b1fad0033d8644","name":"tranche_dr.json","bytes":394},{"sha256":"8cc3c21c006a84aa26ffae0852a21369d8e511ac231122331cf6eeb6a4c44013","name":"tranche_dr.py","bytes":16029},{"sha256":"5e87b3bd42ee732113c074c092ae71211dfc17f077ba447f0e48cb735a8c4143","name":"transcript_dr.md","bytes":3792},{"sha256":"00461eec58511a7a41b50c87d8716a6abed96852755f1718438eb9a1c0034c7b","name":"validate_dr.json","bytes":234},{"sha256":"7f7b7da9b26ce88f86dc7d5e2b4184eb4985d388468bec8ad73454578b91a7be","name":"tranche_dr.py","bytes":16172},{"sha256":"16d5aed2357698ceccf364e865c13e5449716004a8fbdaf3eaf3c69836ae91e3","name":"files_dr.json","bytes":1596},{"sha256":"463470d6c3a19617983601ff4677584591ec71b86b59b3f988b5e31ba3d24391","name":"CORRECTION_dr.md","bytes":1527}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"30f81742f9a6f4191f2343c555612524c2dea8266e94717ae1c43df45571f55e","next_step_sha256":"b6479f6ca9709fa5ba3ac85ad2126163d0bdde6a401cad65936e481e4b543e0d","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}