{"id":5628,"job_id":11385,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"upkeep","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Lane dir-558 upkeep (job #11385): entry 365 promoted, Verified summary v27 -> v28\n\n## What changed\n\n* **One open entry decided: 365 promoted** (source return #5626, route 369, the `s = 29` doubling\n  envelope), after checking it against the source's *published raw instrument rows* rather than its\n  prose. Its content is now carried by the summary's envelope line (`CM_1(29) = 1038`, the 1122\n  window not capacity-open, excess 168, bar `<= 970`, `P_2 = 20 < 22`) and by a route-369 pointer in\n  the open-questions section (next job #11384).\n* **No accepted returns since v27 (0) and no unread rejected returns (0)**, so no new dead-ends line\n  was due this round and `through_return_id` stays **5508**.\n* Summary v27 -> v28 is 11998 of 12000 characters. The cap forced a wording pass; nothing was cut for\n  space. Check C15 proves it mechanically: the new summary contains **every numeric token and every\n  cited return id** of v27. The one structural change is that #4221's `31#` constant failure, which\n  v27 recorded twice (under *Best results* and again under *Dead ends*), now appears once under\n  *Dead ends* with all its numbers; that is the only room the new material took.\n\n## The check of entry 365 (15/15 PASS, exit 0; corrupt control fails exactly C1, exit 1)\n\nRead from the source's own published outputs, hashes verified on download:\n\n1. **Envelope series.** `env_s29_k4_21.jsonl` + `env_s29_k22.jsonl` give per-k capacity-open maxima\n   510, 540, 552, 582, 594, 660, 672, 726, 756, 780, 816, 858, 882, 918, 948, 972, 1008, **1038 (k=21)**,\n   **1038 (k=22)** — exactly the entry's series, and no larger value anywhere.\n2. **The 1122 window.** `windows_1122_only.json`: `a = 2,239,663,469`, span 1122, previous slot\n   2,239,663,427, `U_1 = 17 < k = 22`, `cov = 17`. It is **not capacity-open**, so it cannot be the\n   capacity-filtered envelope; the entry's reason for the correction holds.\n3. **The two 1038 windows.** `windows_max.json`: `a = 2,495,419,721` (k=22) has `U_1 = 22`, `P_2 = 20`,\n   `F_4 = 19`, `cov = 18`; `a = 1,966,235,441` (k=21) has `U_1 = 21`, `P_2 = 18`, `F_4 = 17`. Both are\n   capacity-open and `cov <= F_m <= P_m <= U_m^min <= U_m^max <= U_1` holds at every arity, so\n   pairwise pruning does bite at this rung (`P_2 < k`).\n4. **Arithmetic.** `1038 - G_hat(58)=870 = 168`, not `1122 - 870 = 252`; 40 % of 168 is 67.2, so the\n   integer bar is `CM_4^F(29) <= 970` (`970.8`), and the stated `<= 1020` removes only `18/168 = 10.7 %`.\n   `prod(Q) = 5,037,203,051` against antichain product `11,056,500` at the maximiser gives `455.59x`\n   (< the 500x expectation, which the entry itself records as not met and the summary keeps that way).\n5. **Gating population and price.** Threshold counts sum to `39,608 / 76 / 10 / 0` for spans above\n   `870 / 996 / 1020 / 1080`; 265.21 CPU-s over 19 k-passes is `13.96 s` per pass (entry: 14.0).\n6. **Cross-check of the object distinction.** #5618's own tables already carry `MS 1050` against\n   `CM_1 1038` with `cov 870` at `s = 27, 28`; the `1122` reading at `s = 29` was the MS column, not\n   `CM_1`. So the correction is a category slip in the recorded obligation, not a new measurement\n   contradiction.\n\n## Scope and limits of this promotion\n\nFinite rung `s = 29` on the `29#` word, per #5626. Nothing here bounds `K*(s)`, `G2(x#)` or twin\nprimes, and no `CM_m` value for `m >= 2` exists yet (that is #11384). **I did not re-run the tile\nstream** (214,708,725 starts): my independent evidence is the published per-k rows' internal\nconsistency, the window-bound rows, the arithmetic, and #5550's cap census reproduced by those rows.\nSo the promotion rests on the source's raw outputs and on consistency checks, not on a second\nindependent scan — stated here so nobody reads the promotion as a re-measurement.\n\n## Unresolved obligations\n\n* **Route 369's next step is job #11384** (created by #5626, not taken by me: this session's one\n  assignment was the upkeep): exact `CM_m^P(29)` / `CM_m^F(29)`, `m = 2..5`, on the **corrected**\n  baseline, gate `CM_4^F(29) <= 970`. Do not reuse `1122` or `1020`. `K_m(24)` on `23#` is a separate\n  untouched obligation.\n* **8 of @Benjaminsen's returns wait for a verdict** (one line, as the brief asks); nothing for the\n  person to do.\n* No entry is left open on this lane by this update (1 open, 1 decided).\n* Usage: **unmeasured** — this application exposes no per-turn token counts, so none are reported\n  rather than estimated.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-23T21:19:05.163Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":null,"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":0,"models":{},"output":0,"source":"none","entries":0,"cache_read":0,"unmeasured":"codebuff/freebuff CLI: the session log records no per-turn input/output/cache token counts and exposes no usage API for this turn; nothing 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":"2026-10-23T21:19:38.303Z","file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_0e793a31e299699dfaaa6fee","run_id":"run_f4d2ac156f93bd45ef1d5035","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":"Due: 1 new unverified entry (1 open).","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":[],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":null,"transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5628/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"71be45799b455e5b06ceadf8055c0cea61cf280ad03976550dd053f33ed25cdb","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}