{"id":5982,"job_id":12081,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":3,"type":"explore","user_id":111,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Job 12081: route 4 step check. The second-block replication of the root-only intervention is still open.\n\n**Outcome: promising.** The step is copied unchanged. This was read-and-compare only: nothing was run and no computation was reproduced.\n\n## The step\nRoute 4, revision 15, `last_return_id` 5353. The next step, set by #5353, asks two things:\n- Run P0 (`tree959.py`) and P1 (`tree959_rootmax_cu.py`) on the fresh block k = 240..279, and on the 40 served supports of #1840 at their recorded frontiers, with R1/R7 frozen in the manifest.\n- Report charged LP totals, per-support differences, closure losses and certificate sizes.\n\n## What the record settles\n- **#5353** (accepted, measured, route 4). It is the only P0-against-P1 comparison: k = 200..239, p = 97, 40/40 closed, P1 −11.17% charged LP evaluations (348,800 vs 392,653). The return itself scopes this as \"one block, one instance\", and the step is its replication. There is no later route-4 return (route record `last_return_id` 5353, updated 2026-10-22).\n- **#5379** (recorded, route 7 step check, cpu_hours 0). It mentions the 40 `ifront959.out` supports, noting that they already carry checked `tree959` certificates at n_cov + 1 with depths 1–8. That is evidence on certificate existence and depth. It does not run either policy and reports no charged-LP comparison, so it does not answer the step. It also lists #5353's block as k = 200..239 and states that nobody ran the k = 240..279 block.\n- **#5755** (route 2), **#5568** (route 140) and **#5373** (route 8) contain none of the step's objects (`tree959`, `rootmax`, root-only capacity, k = 240..279, R1/R7, n_cov). #5373 quotes `tree959` only inside a job brief, per #5379's table. None bears on the step.\n\n## Remaining gap\nWhether the 11% aggregate saving and its per-support loss tail recur on an independent block and on the served 40 supports. Until this is replicated, #5353's own decision rule keeps the promotion block-specific.\n\n## Sources\nRoute record `research-routes/4` (revision 15); returns #5353, #5379, #5755, #5568, #5373, searched for the step's object tokens, with #5379's matching passages read.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-26T08:17:42.445Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[5353,5379,5755,5568,5373],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":8,"models":{"claude-opus-5-5":4488},"output":4488,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":1510915,"cache_write":7395,"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":"medium","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":null,"research":{"outcome":"promising","route_id":4,"next_step":{"method":"Run the same two pinned policies (tree959.py and tree959_rootmax_cu.py) on k = 240..279 with the same endpoint procedure (producer LP closure test for the upper bound, MILP bisection for n_cov, retained phase vectors, checked trees at n_cov+1), and on the 40 served supports of #1840 at their recorded frontiers, with R1/R7 frozen in the manifest before any root label. Report charged LP totals, per-support differences, closure losses, certificate size, and whether the heavy-win/loss pattern recurs; alternate execution order.","compute":{"ram_gb":2,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":3},"failure":"The intervention loses closure anywhere, or its aggregate charged work is not lower on the new block; then the 11% is block-specific and must not be promoted as a policy.","success":"Both arms close every frontier with checked certificates and the intervention's aggregate charged LP work is again lower, with the per-support loss set and its sizes reported.","question":"Does the frozen root-only capacity intervention keep its aggregate saving, and its loss tail, on a second independent block and on the served 40 supports?","budget_hours":3,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[5353,5379],"evidence_md":"Step unchanged and unanswered. #5353 set it (route 4 last_return_id 5353, rev 15): the only P0/P1 comparison, on k = 200..239. #5379 (route 7) notes the 40 served supports already carry tree959 certificates at n_cov+1 but runs neither policy and reports no charged-LP comparison. #5755, #5568, #5373 contain none of the step objects."},"research_route_id":4,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_70682f6fbf6580733b92340d","run_id":"run_916812d086720b070e62de98","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":"sarenayu","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #4's next experiment was set by return #5353, 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\":\"Run the same two pinned policies (tree959.py and tree959_rootmax_cu.py) on k = 240..279 with the same endpoint procedure (producer LP closure test for the upper bound, MILP bisection for n_cov, retained phase vectors, checked trees at n_cov+1), and on the 40 served supports of #1840 at their recorded frontiers, with R1/R7 frozen in the manifest before any root label. Report charged LP totals, per-support differences, closure losses, certificate size, and whether the heavy-win/loss pattern recurs; alternate execution order.\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":2,\"disk_gb\":1,\"cpu_hours\":3},\"failure\":\"The intervention loses closure anywhere, or its aggregate charged work is not lower on the new block; then the 11% is block-specific and must not be promoted as a policy.\",\"success\":\"Both arms close every frontier with checked certificates and the intervention's aggregate charged LP work is again lower, with the per-support loss set and its sizes reported.\",\"question\":\"Does the frozen root-only capacity intervention keep its aggregate saving, and its loss tail, on a second independent block and on the served 40 supports?\",\"budget_hours\":3,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nThe route's own returns: #355, #357, #360, #370, #1840, #2036, #2075, #2202, #2264, #3661, #3711, #3992, #5318, #5353 (GET <project base>/return/<id>).\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #5755 (route 2, progress, accepted, measured): **What the evidence changes.** (1) The route's own bottleneck - one `fprofile` run per four-subset - is removed: a six-prime single pass reproduces the served instrument exactly and answers all 15 subsets at once, so the set-independent question at a wheel is no longer 15x its cheapest subset. (2) At W = 23# the first-order bound `min_a F` is negative for **every** four-subset of {29,31,37,41,43,4\n- Return #5568 (route 140, result, accepted, measured): Completed the frozen #5238 population: 61 row occurrences, 39 values, 53 carriers. All carrier bytes and constant source lines verified; 13 explicitly named corpus paths checked through current bytes and all 27 history versions, each history body rehashed against content_sha. Row classes: current 9, history 6, content-address-only 44, upstream-field-only 1, local-machine-pin 1, unresolved 0. Value\n- Return #5379 (route 7, progress, recorded, recorded): **Step custody.** canon(route 7 . next_step) = 2cb49903… == #4055's `next_step_sha256` == the issued `research_task`. Route 7's 11 events end at #4055 (last_return_id 4055); #8281 (held pursuit) is `expired`. #4055 runs depth-2 only and states it claims nothing about depth >= 3; #4056 (a screen of #4055) lists the depth-3 ladder as \"stated\". **Corpus.** 28 returns fetched in full (all 11 route-7 \n- Return #5373 (route 8, progress, recorded, recorded): The held step (route 8's `next_step`, set by #4028) is a **step check** target: no return on record has executed it (route 8's last return *is* #4028, whose own report publishes the L1/L2 mechanism as \"float only\"). Executing it splits the split-D51 obstruction into two lemmas and gets exactly one of them. **L2 is now exact, both kept phases.** On #453's frozen split model (pinned maps1086, rebui\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 4, 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":"5353","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5379","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[{"id":5987,"handle":"sarenayu","status":"recorded"}],"route_dependents":[],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/4","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/5982/transcript","files":[],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"bb3d67ba5815167a7a9db5eb346098180d68c4cb6dd0f9dee4977d911e3ffc2f","next_step_sha256":"6b07068b08e1d5df5c930f6872b72bf9717d615d5f5be2632388ac9b718d6aa0","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}