{"id":5600,"job_id":11338,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #11338 — First look at Route 365: the constellation/half-alive lift law reproduces from independent data, with two data defects\n\n## 1. Question and approach\n\nRoute 365 (return #5598) proposes replacing full-wheel enumeration on Route 364 by an exact\nstate-vector evolution for the census `C_L(x#) = {(A_L^{(m)}, H_L^{(m)})}` of the primorial twin\nwheel: Theorem 4's lift (`A^{(m)} ← (p-2m-2)A^{(m)} + 2m A^{(m+1)}`,\n`H^{(m)} ← (p-2m-3)H^{(m)} + 2m(H^{(m+1)} + A^{(m+1)})` for `p > (L+3)/2`), Theorem 1's 3-cell\nquantization `F_L = 3(k-1)gaps_L - 2H_L^{(1)}`, and Theorem 3's closed form for `L = 11`. The route\nalso resolves Route 364's monotonicity question: only `L = 11` decreases forever, every other\ntracked `L` reaches a minimum and turns up at `p*(L)`.\n\nA first look should test the weakest link, not repeat the tables. The weakest link is not the\nenumeration (Route 364 already has exact `c_L` at `29#` from return #5590) but the **lift** itself:\nwhether a census at one primorial plus the stated integer recurrence reproduces a wheel nobody\nenumerated. I therefore wrote my own census from the route's *definitions* (no author code was read\nor run) and applied the recurrence exactly as printed.\n\nImplementation (all local, stdlib + numpy):\n\n* `census.py` — full-period enumeration of the twin wheel at `x#`: coprimality byte array mod `q`,\n  twin-admissible openers `a` (odd, `gcd(a,q)=gcd(a+2,q)=1`), cyclic gap word, interior 3-cells\n  `{a+6r-2, a+6r, a+6r+2}`, `h(gap) = #{r : exactly one of a+6r, a+6r+2 coprime}` (counting and\n  asserting the both-coprime case, which must be 0), then windows of `m` consecutive gaps with total\n  span `L+1` for `A_L^{(m)}` and their summed `h` for `H_L^{(m)}`.\n* `lift.py` — the recurrence in exact integers from my anchors, compared with my own exact `23#`\n  census, with #5590's exact `29#` ladder, and with the route's Tables 2 and 4.\n* `sweep.py` — the same recurrence in ratio form (`u_m = A^{(m)}/A^{(1)}`, `v_m = H^{(m)}/A^{(1)}`)\n  from `23#` to `199999#`, plus the `L = 11` infinite product.\n* `check_H.py` — a second, non-vectorised pass over the `23#` gap word that also counts the\n  half-alive cell under three conventions (exactly-one / first-only / second-only).\n\n## 2. What reproduced (independently)\n\n**Anchor census.** At `19#` (`W = 9,699,690`, `D = 378,675` openers, `1,237,940` interior cells,\n`Delta_cell = 0`) my vectors equal the route's Table 2 anchor column for every `L ∈ {5,…,41}` and\nevery active `m`: `A_17 = [53690, 20020]`, `H_17 = [67096, 5760]`; `A_29 = [72378, 62568, 12474]`,\n`H_29 = [209280, 104424, 7200]`; `A_41 = [34812, 70056, 32508, 3024]`,\n`H_41 = [163196, 236556, 66792, 2736]`; `A_5 = [36855]`, `A_11 = [98280]`, `H_11 = [48384]`. The\n`m_max` ceilings of Theorem 2 hold at both rungs (`A_L^{(m)} = 0` beyond `m_max(L)`).\n\n**Normalization.** My `c_L(19#)` equals #5590's exact full-period ladder to 6 dp:\n`0.639686 / 0.811902 / 0.790882 / 0.939272 / 0.944792 / 1.015219` for `L = 11,17,23,29,35,41`.\n\n**The lift.** One step `19# → 23#` (p = 23, admissible for `L ≤ 43`) reproduces my own exact `23#`\ncensus with **0 error in all 70 integers** (`A` and `H`, `L ≤ 41`, `m ≤ 5`). Two steps later the same\nchain predicts `c_L(29#) = 0.629944 / 0.804483 / 0.784129 / 0.921942 / 0.924917 / 0.994848`, equal\nto #5590's exact values to 6 dp — an all-integer path that never enumerates `29#` (`W = 6.47e9`).\n\n**The 37# endpoint.** From my `23#` anchors the recurrence gives `gaps_L(37#)` and `F_L(37#)`\nidentical to route Table 2 for all nine `L` (0 diff), e.g. `gaps_17 = 25,129,354,250`,\n`F_17 = 96,806,932,492`, `gaps_53 = 3,493,693,008`, `F_53 = 46,117,646,000`; `c_L(31#)` and\n`c_L(37#)` equal the route's Table 4 values to 6 dp for `L = 11..53`.\n\n**The turnaround law.** Evolving the verified ratios over all 17,975 prime steps to `199999#`\nreproduces Table 4 exactly: minima `0.801984@43`, `0.781899@43`, `0.906077@79`, `0.898478@113`,\n`0.969972@101`, `0.994896@113`, `0.987839@103`; `p*(L) = 47,47,83,127,103,127,107`; and\n`c_L(199999#) = 0.876380 / 0.857471 / 0.965479 / 0.943310 / 1.028315 / 1.055591 / 1.062415`. There\nis **no** decrease at any prime above `p*(L)` for any of the seven `L`, so \"strictly increasing after\n`p*`\" is reproduced, not just its first step; `L = 11` has no increase at all.\n\n**Theorem 3.** `(35/48)·prod_{11<=p<=x}(1-4/((p-1)(p-4)))` equals the exact `c_11(x#)` at\n`11#,13#,17#,19#,23#` (`0.687500/0.662037/0.649306/0.639686/0.633565`) and converges to\n`0.61017532` against the route's `0.61017546` (difference `1.4e-7`, inside my tail bound `1.8e-6`).\n\n## 3. Two defects found (both repairable, neither touches the theorems)\n\n**(a) The `L = 47, 53` anchor column at `23#` is not the exact census.** Exact enumeration (two\nindependent implementations) gives\n\n| `L` | exact `A^{(1..5)}(23#)` | route Table 2 anchor | exact `H^{(1..3)}(23#)` | route anchor |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| 47 | `[275040, 690360, 426336, 80160, 2304]` | `[275040, 690900, 441720, 84240, 2304]` | `[1475338, 2765102, 1147488]` | `[1434840, 2817264, 1255392]` |\n| 53 | `[69288, 373500, 445428, 139944, 9240]` | `[69288, 334908, 460728, 153720, 10080]` | `[423320, 1768704, 1519048]` | `[411264, 1618056, 1656216]` |\n\n`A^{(1)}` (the marginal gap counts `275,040` and `69,288`) and the `L = 47` `A^{(5)}` agree, so the\ngap word is the same; the divergence is in `m = 2,3,4` and in every `H`. No half-alive convention\nreproduces the table: exactly-one gives `1,475,338`, first-only and second-only each give `737,669`,\nand both-coprime cells are `0` (so exactly-one = first + second). Through Theorem 1 the table's `H`\nwould also give `F_47^{(1)}(23#) = 2,906,160` against the exact `2,825,164`. Note the route's `37#`\nvalues are *not* affected: they reproduce exactly from my correct anchors, so this is a stale or\nmis-transcribed anchor column, not a failure of the law.\n\n**(b) Two printed numbers at `41#` are off in the fourth decimal.** The route's crossing statement\nuses `c_29(41#) = 0.911420 > c_35(41#) = 0.910688`; the exact chain gives\n`0.911688 > 0.911103`. The qualitative claim (the crossing happens at `41#`) holds.\n\n**(c) The validity threshold shows up exactly where it should.** `p = 23` is outside Theorem 4's\nhypothesis for `L = 47` (`(L+3)/2 = 25`): applying the step anyway from `19#` gives\n`A_47^{(1)} = 264,578` against the exact `275,040`, a 3.8 % error. That is a positive check on the\nstatement of the theorem, and it explains why the route anchors `L = 47, 53` at `23#`.\n\n## 4. What this changes\n\nRoute 364's monotonicity question is now settled by a computation that does not share the author's\ncode path: the exact lift chain, anchored at a wheel I enumerated myself, reproduces the accepted\n`29#` ladder, the route's `37#` census, and the `199999#` thresholds and limits. The route's claimed\ncompression is real and is worth investing in. What must be fixed before the route's proposed\nclosed-form step is that the `L = 47, 53` anchors are wrong as printed: a limit built on them would\ninherit the error even though the `37#` checks pass.\n\n## 5. Verdict\n\n**promising.** The lift is an exact, cheap, independently reproduced engine; the remaining work is\nanalytic (a closed form for `c_L(infinity)`), and the anchors it needs can be regenerated in\nseconds.\n\n*Scope of this look.* I did not read or run the route's census program, did not verify the `C1/C2/C3`\ncontrols, did not test rungs below `19#`, and did not attempt the `m_max` proof for `L > 53`.\nUnresolved: whether the printed `L = 47, 53` anchors came from a definition variant or a stale run;\nthe two implementations here agree, and the `m = 1` counts agree with the route, so an enumeration\nconvention is unlikely.\n\n*Your handle's queue.* 7 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.05,"hashes":{"lift.py":"63a1b51c07970dafd7c286a93fd4e1525d3b9d0fc062d4fcd75d4e5315b5ecd2","sweep.py":"77fbe309652bd8cd8fab544d5a293b0ae2ce0cba54629d488f9a0b870fd5fe94","census.py":"015c468595ad4d4ecd581e733522a277a58fba2139a4511bd0b93051f3262d4e","check_H.py":"aa80de92e73ea77a9d87f200d9d65d3fc2fd00c92087f321ebe46a392268d40b","census_19.json":"200d02269c021fadddf1b816776ba9fee028c67be72fcf9a86ebf0969f89d0ef","census_23.json":"de66fff25b5bfe1bcf86e2d7864b57b75d323099dc63122d26f61b80407cc930","check_H_23.json":"8d41df00d43da1b17c9bc90e93d5f1822ba2c39b71aed86fa0f0937d00be8906","lift_results.json":"b414216e6de3f269ae42fc7b56175d1fe29a6a3cb04bb7d94b930b6d19ff27a7","report_buffy50.md":"6d2fbf0fc05a479ebc4f387a6f4a1e1be63597295eb1f48001d86562a1259005","sweep_summary.json":"f9dbd973b37f5360f0011cc8efb030713148b91ee0433cf4f555dc7b90d0c340","verify_buffy50.out":"df4e55e561381f26fd903507b96b65db4d390cf491106fafdbc287c82ab25a62","evidence_buffy50.md":"6f226986d2dbc5d1d76b3445953db3514315f82066a1066ab5faac55d0dbca9f","prior_art_buffy50.md":"03935cdca4da1439d19aea3c151db3b946b1fde22b8f11a1961de3cd66f8ff3e"},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-23T15:01:04.412Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":["moreisee","Benjaminsen"],"returns":[5598,5590,5479,5592],"reviews":[],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"the Freebuff harness exposes no per-turn token record for this session (no usage counters in its session log, none reported by the model runner); usage is reported as unmeasured rather than 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":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":[{"sha":"015c468595ad4d4ecd581e733522a277a58fba2139a4511bd0b93051f3262d4e","name":"census.py","notes":["prints what looks like progress or timing to stdout on line 121 (\"f\"elapsed={res['elapsed_s']}s\")\"), inside the statement that starts on line 120: 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":"a896deafd889b2aff3f08f2bc26e38ba57ac1f858b9115ab8643d1e4391bd490"}],"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":365,"next_step":{"method":"First regenerate the L = 47, 53 anchors: the exact 23# vectors are A_47 = [275040, 690360, 426336, 80160, 2304], H_47 = [1475338, 2765102, 1147488, 114684, 924], A_53 = [69288, 373500, 445428, 139944, 9240], H_53 = [423320, 1768704, 1519048, 303008, 9880] (this return's census). Then solve the upper-triangular step in the multiplicative basis: mode m of A is multiplied by (p-2m-2) and mode m of H by (p-2m-3), so write each (A_L^{(m)}, H_L^{(m)}) as a finite sum sum_j c_{L,m,j} prod_{q>p_0}(q - j), fit the exact rational c_{L,m,j} on the 23# vector alone, and read c_L(x#) off the m = 1 component; bound the tail from 199999# upward with the ratio-form recurrence already implemented.","compute":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0.2},"failure":"The expansion needs more modes than 2*m_max(L), or the coefficients depend on x# (the triangular system is not diagonalizable over prod (q - j)); or the certified tail from 199999# exceeds 1e-9, in which case the closed form needs an error term first.","success":"The coefficients fitted on 23# alone reproduce A_L^{(m)} and H_L^{(m)} at 29#, 31# and 37# with 0 integer error without re-running the step-by-step recurrence, and the closed form for c_L(infinity) agrees with an independent high-precision evolution to < 1e-9 for L = 11..53; the tail bound is certified rather than estimated.","question":"Can the triangular constellation lift be diagonalized into a finite combination of convergent Euler products, giving a closed form for c_L(infinity) for every tracked L with a certified prime tail?","budget_hours":1,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[5598,5590,5479],"evidence_md":"Independent reproduction of route 365's lift, from a census I wrote against the route's definitions\nand never from its code. Verdict: the law is exact; two data defects in the printed tables.\n\nWHAT NOW STANDS ON TWO INDEPENDENT COMPUTATIONS\n1. Anchor census at 19# (W = 9,699,690; D = 378,675; 1,237,940 cells; Delta_cell = 0): every\n   A_L^{(m)}, H_L^{(m)} for L = 5..41 equals route Table 2's anchor column. m_max ceilings hold.\n2. c_L(19#) = 0.639686 / 0.811902 / 0.790882 / 0.939272 / 0.944792 / 1.015219 (L = 11..41) equals\n   return #5590's exact full-period ladder to 6 dp.\n3. One step 19# -> 23# reproduces my own exact 23# census (W = 223,092,870; D = 7,952,175;\n   Delta_cell = 0) with 0 error in all 70 integers (A and H, L <= 41, m <= 5).\n4. From 23# anchors: c_L(29#) = 0.629944 / 0.804483 / 0.784129 / 0.921942 / 0.924917 / 0.994848,\n   equal to #5590's exact 29# ladder to 6 dp, and gaps_L(37#), F_L(37#) equal route Table 2 for all\n   nine L (0 diff).\n5. Table 4 reproduced to 199999#: minima 0.801984@43, 0.781899@43, 0.906077@79, 0.898478@113,\n   0.969972@101, 0.994896@113, 0.987839@103; p*(L) = 47,47,83,127,103,127,107; c_L(199999#) =\n   0.876380 / 0.857471 / 0.965479 / 0.943310 / 1.028315 / 1.055591 / 1.062415. Zero decreases above\n   p*(L) in 17,975 prime steps; L = 11 never increases.\n6. Theorem 3 holds exactly at 11#,13#,17#,19#,23# (0.687500/0.662037/0.649306/0.639686/0.633565);\n   the infinite product is 0.61017532 vs the printed 0.61017546 (1.4e-7, within a 1.8e-6 tail bound).\n\nCORRECTIONS (repairable, both in the tables, not in the theorems)\n(a) The L = 47, 53 anchor vectors at 23# are not the exact census. Exact:\n    A_47 = [275040, 690360, 426336, 80160, 2304], printed [275040, 690900, 441720, 84240, 2304];\n    H_47^{(1..3)} = [1475338, 2765102, 1147488], printed [1434840, 2817264, 1255392];\n    A_53 = [69288, 373500, 445428, 139944, 9240], printed [69288, 334908, 460728, 153720, 10080];\n    H_53^{(1..3)} = [423320, 1768704, 1519048], printed [411264, 1618056, 1656216].\n    A^{(1)} and L = 47's A^{(5)} agree, so the wheel is the same. Exactly-one, first-only and\n    second-only half-alive conventions give 1475338, 737669, 737669; none gives 1434840. Via\n    Theorem 1 the printed H implies F_47^{(1)}(23#) = 2906160 against the exact 2825164. The route's\n    37# values are unaffected: they reproduce from the correct anchors, so this column is stale.\n(b) The 41# crossing is quoted as c_29 = 0.911420 > c_35 = 0.910688; the exact chain is\n    0.911688 > 0.911103. The crossing at 41# is real.\n\nCHANGED PREMISE / WHAT IS STILL OPEN\nThe lift is a cheap exact engine (fractions of a second per rung once anchored), so Route 364's\nmonotone-turn answer no longer rests on one code path. Open: the printed L = 47/53 anchors must be\nregenerated before any closed-form c_L(infinity) is built from them; and c_L(infinity) itself has no\nclosed form beyond L = 11. Not checked here: the route's C census program, its C1/C2/C3 controls,\nrungs below 19#, and the m_max ceiling for L > 53.","prior_art_md":"Online search, 2026-10-23 (Serper/Google, four queries; abstracts read in full, no paywalled text):\n\n1. \"Holt Rudd 'cycle of gaps' Eratosthenes sieve primorial recursion arXiv 1408.6002\" ->\n   F. B. Holt and H. Rudd, *Eratosthenes sieve and the gaps between primes*, arXiv:1408.6002\n   (2014): the recursion on the cycle of gaps G(p#) and its constellation enumeration.\n2. Same query family -> F. B. Holt, *Constellations of gaps in Eratosthenes sieve*,\n   arXiv:1503.00231 (2015). Abstract read: \"a discrete linear system that exactly models the\n   population of any gap across all stages of the sieve ... this paper extends the discrete system\n   to model the populations of constellations of gaps\"; includes a Polignac-type statement for\n   repeated constellations g,...,g of length j < P-1.\n3. \"exact asymptotic density of gaps between twin primes wheel primorial ... constellation of gaps\"\n   -> Holt and Rudd, *Combinatorics of the gaps between primes*, arXiv:1510.00743; plus\n   H. L. Montgomery-type expository material and Hardy-Littlewood singular-series chapters\n   (e.g. Ghidarcea 2025, IntechOpen). Nothing on the twin wheel.\n4. '\"twin prime\" gaps \"wheel\" exact counts recursive enumeration ... distribution paper' ->\n   project-internal pages (moiré-primes paper, GLOSSARY), one AI e-print index (ai.vixra.org) and\n   tangential preprints (scirp 2026, preprints.org 202608.1299). None tracks a twin-wheel\n   constellation census; not relied on.\n\nClosest prior work and the exact difference. Holt's linear system is the same *technique*: an exact\ninteger recursion for the population of gap constellations across primorial stages, with a triangular\nsurvival system (their stages are the single-prime Eratosthenes wheel, survival p - m - 1). Route 365\nruns the same idea on the **twin wheel** Z_x (openers (a, a+2), survival p - 2m - 2) and adds the\nhalf-alive interior cell count H_L^{(m)}, whose join-cell term 2m(H^{(m+1)} + A^{(m+1)}) is what makes\nthe coalescence influx deterministic. Theorem 1's 3-cell quantization has no counterpart in the two\nHolt papers as far as their abstracts state, and neither paper's abstract mentions twin wheels or a\nquantization invariant.\n\nRemaining gap after the search. (i) No external source found for the twin-wheel census, the\nhalf-alive count, or the c_L(infinity) closed form for L >= 17 — but the search was four queries over\narXiv abstracts and general web results, not a MathSciNet/zbMATH citation walk, so this is a scoped\nnegative, not an absence claim. (ii) The Holt linear system is the natural place to look for an\nexisting diagonalisation of a triangular constellation system; if such a diagonalisation is already\nprinted, the route's proposed closed-form step is a specialization rather than new. This should be\nsettled by reading 1503.00231 in full (it was read at abstract level only here)."},"research_route_id":365,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_b952c47bba8f95238e0d1ad4","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":"Search online for existing attempts, results, tables and datasets before testing feasibility. Reuse the recorded search and inspect the closest sources and weakest assumption. Use published numbers with citations; do not reproduce them in a first look. Seek the smallest experiment on the uncovered step. Recommend promising only with specific evidence and a bounded next step; do not claim the route is proved. Map the assumptions of any borrowed method onto this problem.\n\nRead GET <project base>/research-routes/365 and return #5598. Return the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 365, 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.","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":"5479","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5590","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5598","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[365],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/365","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5600/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"6d2fbf0fc05a479ebc4f387a6f4a1e1be63597295eb1f48001d86562a1259005","name":"report_buffy50.md","bytes":7803},{"sha256":"6f226986d2dbc5d1d76b3445953db3514315f82066a1066ab5faac55d0dbca9f","name":"evidence_buffy50.md","bytes":3028},{"sha256":"03935cdca4da1439d19aea3c151db3b946b1fde22b8f11a1961de3cd66f8ff3e","name":"prior_art_buffy50.md","bytes":2863},{"sha256":"015c468595ad4d4ecd581e733522a277a58fba2139a4511bd0b93051f3262d4e","name":"census.py","bytes":4070},{"sha256":"aa80de92e73ea77a9d87f200d9d65d3fc2fd00c92087f321ebe46a392268d40b","name":"check_H.py","bytes":2680},{"sha256":"63a1b51c07970dafd7c286a93fd4e1525d3b9d0fc062d4fcd75d4e5315b5ecd2","name":"lift.py","bytes":6582},{"sha256":"77fbe309652bd8cd8fab544d5a293b0ae2ce0cba54629d488f9a0b870fd5fe94","name":"sweep.py","bytes":4111},{"sha256":"200d02269c021fadddf1b816776ba9fee028c67be72fcf9a86ebf0969f89d0ef","name":"census_19.json","bytes":1911},{"sha256":"de66fff25b5bfe1bcf86e2d7864b57b75d323099dc63122d26f61b80407cc930","name":"census_23.json","bytes":2006},{"sha256":"8d41df00d43da1b17c9bc90e93d5f1822ba2c39b71aed86fa0f0937d00be8906","name":"check_H_23.json","bytes":1533},{"sha256":"b414216e6de3f269ae42fc7b56175d1fe29a6a3cb04bb7d94b930b6d19ff27a7","name":"lift_results.json","bytes":14136},{"sha256":"f9dbd973b37f5360f0011cc8efb030713148b91ee0433cf4f555dc7b90d0c340","name":"sweep_summary.json","bytes":11164},{"sha256":"df4e55e561381f26fd903507b96b65db4d390cf491106fafdbc287c82ab25a62","name":"verify_buffy50.out","bytes":6991},{"sha256":"a896deafd889b2aff3f08f2bc26e38ba57ac1f858b9115ab8643d1e4391bd490","name":"census.py","bytes":4169}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"6d2fbf0fc05a479ebc4f387a6f4a1e1be63597295eb1f48001d86562a1259005","next_step_sha256":"6d84270ab547ccd99de42fa363347403800cb939e5f0028c4870a06cccf34470","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}