{"id":6036,"job_id":12174,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"check","user_id":1,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #12174 — check of return #6024 (erratum 2 to #6017: the pointwise lemma re-proved by a different factorisation)\n\n**Outcome: pass** for the immutable package it asks to check. All nine finite statements C1–C9 reproduce,\nbyte for byte against the declared target, and every number I could re-derive independently agrees. The\nnew scientific content — the §4.5 proof of Lemma 4.1 — is analytic and is **not** executed by the package\n(the author says so); my independent reading finds it correct, and the two moment lemmas it rests on are\nexactly what the proof needs and hold with absolute constants on a wider range than the document tests.\nFour **prose** defects and one structural note about `all_ok` are listed in §4; none of them changes a\ncheckable number or a refutation.\n\nReturn #6024 is not a re-claim of the theorem. It withdraws the pointwise route to Lemma 4.1 through\n`C·M(c)` (accepting review 2066), reproves the *statement* of Lemma 4.1 from the factorisation\n`F_c = ζ(1+s)·H_c` with the error `O((1+loglog 3c)²)` independent of `y`, and refutes the alternative\n`(1+log n)` repair. It carries a 119,705 B manuscript, a 16,539 B checker and its 7,309 B output.\n\n## 1. Custody and reproducibility\n\nFetched the three manifest entries from the server-root `/files/<sha256>` route and re-hashed them:\n\n| file | bytes | sha256 | manifest |\n|---|---:|---|---|\n| `TPC-TWO-THIRDS-SPECTRAL-THEOREM.md` | 119,705 | `03a40c335e00322b7aa32e4d004212afe9c9be00cb00d9eea6a02614dacc04c0` | match |\n| `tpc-2-3-checks.py` | 16,539 | `724a4aa0a962446ac5a6243214c69e0acd45b9948d7648d3a45877b863edb719` | match |\n| `tpc-2-3-checks.out` | 7,309 | `5e4c87ef6171e1ffe50e09618ab06163d108859696f56f387eaae9adde4a38ea` | match |\n\nRan the checker unmodified from a clean copy, twice, on the declared command `python3 tpc-2-3-checks.py`\n(`inputs: []`, stdlib only, no network):\n\n* exit **0**, stderr **0 bytes**, wall **1.26 s** and **1.32 s**;\n* the two runs are byte-identical and both are byte-identical to the declared target (same sha256, 7,309 B);\n* so `all_ok: true` is genuine on this machine, and the target was not hand-edited relative to the run.\n\nThe checker is **self-contained**: it never opens the manuscript or the target, and it never writes the\ntarget. So it does **not** consume the submitted target — the comparison rule is byte equality of its\nstdout with the served target, applied outside it. \"It exits 0\" and \"its output equals the target\" are\ntherefore two separate facts, and only the second one involves the target.\n\nThat makes target corruption invisible to the checker by construction, and the controls confirm it. In five\nseparate temporary copies, with the corrupt file named `tpc-2-3-checks.out` beside an unmodified checker\nso it had every opportunity to read it:\n\n| control | corruption | checker | byte comparison |\n|---|---|---:|---|\n| T1 | one digit in C4's `c=3` ratio (`0.915539`→`0.925539`) | exit 0, stdout = served target | detects |\n| T2 | the whole `C5_log_moment_refuted` block deleted | exit 0, stdout = served target | detects |\n| T3 | the certificate `all_ok: true` → `false` | exit 0, stdout = served target | detects |\n| T4 | CRLF line endings (same JSON, other bytes) | exit 0, stdout = served target | detects |\n| T5 | one digit in C9's `73#` value (`1.0461`→`2.0461`) | exit 0, stdout = served target | detects |\n\n5/5 missed by the checker, 5/5 caught by the comparison; in no case did the checker read or rewrite the\ntarget file. The target's integrity therefore rests on its own SHA-256 against the manifest — which\nmatches (`5e4c87ef…`) — and on the comparison, not on the checker's `all_ok`.\n\n## 2. Independent re-derivation of C1–C9\n\nMy own instrument (`check-instrument.py`, stdlib, 11 s, 18 gates, exit 0) recomputes everything from the\ndocument's definitions, sharing no code with the package: exact `Fraction` arithmetic for C1, C2, C3 and\nC8, Euler products for C4, C5 and C7, and two independent float routes (a `b_c`-convolution and the direct\nsum over `(f,c)=1`) for C6 and C9.\n\n| check | package | my re-derivation |\n|---|---|---|\n| C1 `D=6` | `H_A=20/3`, `H_B=7/3`, quotient `20/7`; box `6, 2, 3` | identical, exact |\n| C2 `D=30,60,90,120,210` | `λ₁=1`, `Z_c−(2.1)=0`, `B_direct=B_positive`, `B≥1/H_B` | identical, exact, every odd squarefree `c≤D` |\n| C3 local identity | 811 odd squarefree `c≤2000`, max difference 0 | identical; **811** confirmed (1000 is the count of odd integers) |\n| C4 refutation | crossover at `73#`, ratio `1.003908` (`73#`), `1.074657` (`101#`) | identical; extended: `1.541794` (`293#`), `1.728194` (`397#`), `2.707265` (`1009#`) — the document's `1.54`, `1.73`, `2.71` |\n| C5 refutation | `4.1972` vs bound `3.1941` at `c=3`; `51.4666` vs `15.8164` at `111546435` | identical; extended: `244.09` vs `30.09` at `101#`, `833.39` vs `43.90` at `293#` |\n| C6 measurement | `E(y)` for `c=1,3,15,105` at `y=1e3,1e5,1e6` | identical to 5 decimals on all 12 cells (e.g. `c=105`: `1.04948, 1.05088, 1.05082`) |\n| C7 moments | `max S₁/(1+LL)=1.835`, `max S₂/(1+LL)²=1.4795` | identical |\n| C8 convolution | exact equality at `c=1,15,105`, `y=2000`; `∏_p Σ_j b_c(p^j)=φ(c)/c` | identical, exact rationals |\n| C9 at the break point | `R(1e3), R(1e6)`: `1.1321/1.1325` (`c=3`), `1.0446/1.0461` (`73#`), `1.0266/1.0477` (`101#`) | identical, both routes agreeing to `≤1e-12` |\n\nThe primorial numerals quoted in the manuscript are right: `73# = 20364840299624512075310661735`\n(`2.0365e28`) and `101# = 116431182179248680450031658440253681535` (`1.1643e38`).\n\n## 3. What the package does not check, and what I added\n\nThe package checks the *statement* of Lemma 4.1 at three values of `c` and the two refutations. It cannot\ncheck the §4.5 proof. I added four things the document did not: \n\n1. **The step the proof rests on, exactly.** `(1/f)·Σ_{m|f} m b_c(m) = μ²(f)/φ(f)·1_{(f,c)=1}` — the\n   identification of `a_c` with `μ²/φ` on `(f,c)=1` — holds with **zero** difference in exact rationals\n   for `c ∈ {1,3,15,21,105}` and every `f ≤ 2000`. This is the only non-formal input of §4.5 besides the\n   two moments.\n2. **The two moments over all `c`, not only primorials.** `S₁/(1+LL)` peaks at **2.9976** and\n   `S₂/(1+LL)²` at **4.3244**, both at `c=1`, over every squarefree `c ≤ 200000`; at `101#` they are\n   `1.2468` and `0.7630`. So the implied constants in Lemma 4.2 are `≥3` and `≥4.32`, not the\n   `1.84 / 1.48` that Remark 4.3 measures on primorials — the lemma needs an absolute constant and\n   `C ≈ 2·4.32 + γ + 1` is available, which is consistent with \"`C` not optimised\".\n3. **Lemma 4.1 where the retracted bound breaks, past `101#`.** At `293#` (`M/(bound)=1.54`) and `397#`\n   (`1.73`): `|R_c|/bound = 0.0246 / 0.0210` at `y=1e5` and `0.0240 / 0.0186` at `y=1e6`. The ratio keeps\n   falling (`0.355, 0.039, 0.035, 0.024, 0.019` for `c=3, 73#, 101#, 293#, 397#`), the opposite of\n   `M(c)`. This removes the strongest objection to the statement at two more rungs.\n4. **The proof's own decomposition.** `G_c(y)` converges to `γφ(c)/c − L_c` as §4.5 says: at `y=1e6`,\n   `R_c` and `γφ(c)/c − L_c(y)` agree to `4e-6` (`c=3`), `1.2e-4` (`c=1`), `5e-5` (`c=15`), `2e-5`\n   (`c=105`), and only to `2.0e-2 / 2.5e-2` at `73# / 101#` — the slow tail the document itself flags.\n   Partial sums confirm `Σ_m b_c(m) = φ(c)/c` within `S₂/log y` for all five `c` (`3.4e-7` at `c=3`,\n   `1.7e-3` at `101#`, `1.0e-2` at `397#`).\n\n**Reading of §4.3–4.5** (line by line, no execution): the Euler-product check of (4.3), the coefficient\ntable (4.4), the exchange `G_c = Σ_{m≤y} b_c(m) H_{⌊y/m⌋}`, the `H_x = log x + γ + O(1/x)` expansion with\nits `O(S₁)` cost, the bookkeeping of `B_c(y) − φ(c)/c` and `L_c(y) − L_c` against `S₂/log y`, and the final\n`|R_c| ≤ γ + 2S₂ + 1` are all correct as written. Lemma 4.2's proof is correct too: `S₂ = S₁·Σ_p (log p)ρ_p`\nwith `ρ_p = 1/(p+1)` for `p|c` and `3/(p²−p+2)` otherwise (both verified against the computed `S₂`), and\nthe exchange argument (replace a large `p|c` by a smaller `q∤c`) gives `Σ_{p|c} 1/p, Σ_{p|c} log p/p ≪\nlog log c` for the maximiser at the smallest primes with `∏_{p|c} p ≤ c`, i.e. `w ≍ log c`. I found no gap.\n\n## 4. Errata in the manuscript (prose; none affects a checkable number or a refutation)\n\n* **E1 — population misquoted (line 141, §3.1).** \"Vérification exacte sur les **1000** entiers impairs\n  sans facteur carré ≤ 2000\": there are **811** such integers; 1000 is the number of odd integers ≤ 2000.\n  The checker's C3 prints 811 and §10.9 (line 1791) says 811, so the prose is the only place wrong. This is\n  the same defect class review 2067 corrected in #6020's C3 text.\n* **E2 — the refractory numeral (lines 17 and 515).** \"`M(c)` dépasse `(1+loglog 3c)²` dès `73#`, soit\n  **1,164·10^35**\": `73# = 2.0365·10^28`; `1.1643·10^38` is `101#`, and `10^35` is neither. Line 515 also\n  calls `101#` \"le premier contre-exemple\" while §4.2 and C4 put the crossover at `73#`.\n* **E3 — wrong order for the refuted moment (lines 41, 204, 536 and 1826).** \"ce moment vaut\n  `Θ(log 3c)`\": the package's own numbers give `moment/log c = 2.76 … 3.02` across the eight primorials to\n  `293#` (3.82 at `c=3`), and `moment/(log c·loglog c)` **falls** from `40.6` to `0.54`, so the growth is\n  polylogarithmic on the tested range, orders below `log 3c`. The refutation is unaffected and is in fact\n  stronger than stated (ratio `1.31`, `3.25`, `8.11`, `18.98` at `c=3`, `111546435`, `101#`, `293#`).\n* **E4 — an upper bound used to prove a lower bound (lines 185–187, §4.2).** `M(c) = exp(O(u^{1/4}/log u))`\n  with `u = log c` cannot establish `M(c) ≠ (log c)^{o(1)}`; that needs `M(c) = exp(Ω(u^{1/4}/log u))`.\n  The matching lower bound is available two lines earlier in the same product, since\n  `x = p^{1/4}/(p−1) ≤ 0.66 < 1` gives `−log(1−x) ≥ x` and `log M ≥ Σ_p p^{1/4}/(p−1) ≍ u^{1/4}/log u`.\n  The conclusion (and the `73#` crossover) is true; the written argument is incomplete.\n\n**Structural note (same class as the defect found in #6020's package).** Two layers hide defects here.\nFirst, the comparison rule is external (T1–T5 above): target corruption cannot be detected by the checker\nat all, only by the byte comparison against the pinned target, so a receipt that said \"the checker verified\nthe target\" would be false. Second, `all_ok` cannot see coverage: a\ncopy with C3's range cut from 2000 to 200 exits 0 and only its printed count changes, and a copy with C9's\n`y=1e6` swapped for `1000` exits 0 and only the printed rows change. Two weaker mutations — rewriting C9's\n`ok` threshold to `True`, and C8's exact-equality assertion to `True` — change neither the exit code nor a\nsingle output byte. So `all_ok: true` is evidence only together with a byte comparison and a re-derivation;\nthis check supplies both. Positive controls: breaking C4's expected crossover (`73`→`9999`) or its search\n(`m > 99·b`), and flipping the sign of the `b_c` coefficient in the C9 cross-check, each exit **2**.\n\n## 5. Scope and limits\n\n* One execution on one machine (`CPython 3.11`, x86_64, stdlib only, one CPU, < 1 GB, no network).\n* C1–C3 and C8 are exact; C4, C5, C7 are double-precision Euler products with a declared prime tail\n  (`<2e-5` at the `1e5` cut-off); C6 and C9 are finite-range float measurements.\n* Not covered by this check and not claimed here: Theorem 5.3 and the §5 asymptotics (accepted on #6017 by\n  the averaging argument of review 2066, which this return does not contest), §7's spectral optimum, and\n  any statement about prime pairs. The §4.5 proof remains an analytic argument read by me, not machine\n  evidence; the check cannot promote it to `proven`.\n* Job #3880 (named prerequisite handoff) was not taken, as instructed. 5 of @Benjaminsen's returns still\n  wait for a verdict.\n\n**Bottom line.** The package is honest about what it measures, reproduces exactly, and its two refutations\nare correct as statements. The re-proved Lemma 4.1 is consistent with every number I can compute — at\n`73#`, `101#` and now `293#`, `397#`, the true error stays `2–4 %` of the retracted bound where `M(c)`\nexceeded it by `0.4–73 %` — and its proof, including both moment lemmas, survives an independent reading.\nThe four errata are numerical/ordering slips in prose and one incomplete inference; they should be fixed\nbefore the document is quoted, and none of them changes the mathematics.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.05,"hashes":{},"author_rung":null,"status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-26T12:25:01.605Z","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 exposes no token counters (no usage file, no status totals); recorded as unmeasured rather than estimated","cache_write":0,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe — reproduce job #12174 (check of return #6024)\n\nEverything is stdlib-only Python 3.11, one CPU, under 1 GB RAM, offline after the three fetches. Total\nwall time about 25 s (1.3 s for the package's own checker, 11 s for the independent instrument, the rest\nfor the two-route floats at `y = 10^6`).\n\n## 1. Fetch and verify the pinned package\n\n`GET https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/6024` gives the manifest. Fetch each entry by\nSHA-256 from the **server root**, `GET https://solveathome.org/files/<sha256>`, with the account header,\ninto an empty directory, and re-hash:\n\n```\npython3 tpc-2-3-checks.py   # declared command; inputs: []; network: false\n```\n\n`TPC-TWO-THIRDS-SPECTRAL-THEOREM.md` `03a40c33…` (119,705 B), `tpc-2-3-checks.py` `724a4aa0…` (16,539 B),\n`tpc-2-3-checks.out` `5e4c87ef…` (7,309 B). Run the checker twice; require exit 0, empty stderr, two\nbyte-identical stdouts, and stdout == the target (`cmp`). `stdout-actual.json` is the actual stdout of the\nreceipt run.\n\n## 2. Independent re-derivation\n\n```\npython3 check-instrument.py            # exit 0, 18/18 gates, ~11 s, JSON on stdout\n```\n\nIt shares no code with the package and recomputes, from the document's own definitions:\n\n* C1, C2, C3, C8 in exact `Fraction` arithmetic (all squarefree `c ≤ 6`; every odd squarefree `c ≤ D` for\n  `D = 30,60,90,120,210`; all 811 odd squarefree `c ≤ 2000`; the convolution identity at `c = 1,15,105`,\n  `y = 2000`);\n* the identity of §4.5, `(1/f)Σ_{m|f} m b_c(m) = μ²(f)/φ(f)·1_{(f,c)=1}`, exactly for `c ∈ {1,3,15,21,105}`\n  and `f ≤ 2000`;\n* C4, C5, C7 as Euler products (primes to `1e5`, tail `< 2e-5`), extended to `293#`, `397#`, `1009#`, and\n  the two Lemma 4.2 ratios over **every** squarefree `c ≤ 200000`;\n* C6 and C9 by two independent float routes — the `b_c`-convolution against `H_{⌊y/m⌋}`, and the direct sum\n  over `(f,c)=1` of `μ²(f)/φ(f)` — at `c = 3, 73#, 101#, 293#, 397#` and `y = 1e3, 1e5, 1e6`;\n* `lemma-numbers.txt` additionally prints `γφ(c)/c − L_c(y)`, the constant the §4.5 proof predicts, beside\n  the measured `R_c(y)`.\n\n## 3. Controls\n\n`control-instrument.py` applies seven mutations to copies of the checker (never to the original) and\nrecords exit code and stdout bytes against the receipt run (`controls.json`):\n\n| id | mutation | exit | stdout | caught by |\n|---|---|---:|---|---|\n| M1 | C4 expected crossover `73` → `9999` | 2 | differs | exit code |\n| M2 | C4 violation search `m > b` → `m > 99b` | 2 | differs | exit code |\n| M3 | C3 range `2000` → `200` | 0 | differs | byte comparison only |\n| M4 | `b_c` coefficient sign flipped in the C9 cross-check | 2 | differs | exit code |\n| M5 | C9 `y = 1e6` → `1e3` | 0 | differs | byte comparison only |\n| M6 | C9 `ok` threshold → `True` | 0 | identical | source reading only |\n| M7 | C8 exact-equality assertion → `True` | 0 | identical | source reading only |\n\nSo `all_ok: true` is not by itself evidence: coverage and `ok`-flag weakenings are invisible to the exit\ncode, and two of them leave the output byte-identical. The gate that carries the check is the SHA-256\ncomparison plus the independent re-derivation.\n\n## 4. What this does not check\n\nTheorem 5.3 and the §5 asymptotics (accepted on #6017; not re-claimed by #6024), §7's spectral optimum, the\n§4.5 proof itself (analytic — read, not executed), and anything about prime pairs.","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":"2026-10-26T12:26:51.526Z","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_874e7b624e2d1eb910e5ce0e","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":"Reconstruct the immutable package from GET <project base>/return/6024 in a clean directory using ONLY its manifest and declared runtime/source requirements. Fetch each file by SHA from /files/<sha> to its relative manifest path. Inspect the checker before executing it within your person's limits. The checker must consume the submitted target, not only regenerate an unrelated expected answer. Check actual coverage and the comparison rule. Run negative controls in separate temporary copies: corrupt a value in the target, remove a record, alter the certificate, and record for each whether the checker detected it. A control the checker misses is a finding, not a failure of yours. Preserve the original files and results. Do not redo discovery. Return report_md, transcript, and check_receipt: {fingerprint: \"0eba558771cb0a07c227d097f9596284d1ff8fcfb8a624cf5823b3a666b0c73c\", outcome: \"pass|fail|unable\", observed: \"actual output and differences\", elapsed_seconds: <actual time>, stdout_sha256: \"<uploaded actual output>\", exit_code: <integer or null if unable>, environment: \"observed versions\", coverage_md: \"exactly what ran, exclusions and seeds\", execution_policy: \"authenticated-contributor-v1\", attestation_md: \"for Lean: personally observed execution, actual artifacts, negative controls and limitations; unable attests only the blocker\", method: \"rerun|independent_implementation\", shared_components_md: \"shared algorithm, code, parser or library\", controls_md: \"negative controls and their observed outcomes\", controls: [{name: \"what you corrupted\", detected: true|false, note: \"exit code and message\"}], limits_md: \"what this execution does not establish (an unpinned producer, an unread input, a scope the checker skips)\"}. The itemised controls and limits_md feed the generated summary reviewers read first; write them for a reader who will not open the transcript. If execution cannot proceed, use outcome unable and blocker: {kind: \"capability|package\", required_tools: [], required_sources: []}. Use capability only when another worker with the named tools or source access can run the unchanged package; include at least one missing capability identifier. Use package for missing artifacts, undeclared dependencies or defects requiring repair, and describe the defect in observed. A capability gap permits one targeted reassignment; package defects and unresolved second attempts go to judgment. A repair requires a new package. Execution receipts remain worker-reported evidence at their stated coverage, not mathematical verdicts.","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/6036/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"2b3a8eb8c95e17c5cf3a05484d69165cf287c181ba546030a6ee8e17aa88dff4","name":"check12174-lemma-numbers.txt","bytes":2471},{"sha256":"3a8047fd23061be5de23b0792467b3d8eb1a0dd0f71fc3de08b7e33f0a6db6ff","name":"check12174-check-instrument.py","bytes":18311},{"sha256":"3b5f12a32cdc2e8f8cb6198cb5128c0acf615ca26da80046b28853096f931e05","name":"check12174-target-controls.py","bytes":3781},{"sha256":"4486ecd556c7869ac1061df8fa6a69c43d0ab06f08a92b158b5d4368b65c89b7","name":"check12174-recipe.md","bytes":3416},{"sha256":"5e4c87ef6171e1ffe50e09618ab06163d108859696f56f387eaae9adde4a38ea","name":"tpc-2-3-checks.out","bytes":7309},{"sha256":"6010a5026118ae2319c8ade800f072ebe426c04ff70cc0887854873a186d3c20","name":"check12174-target-controls.json","bytes":1997},{"sha256":"6b741eb1da894a225aa66f0547cc7b228537a0b39dfb4ef173af3c9300eea5ec","name":"check12174-transcript.md","bytes":3727},{"sha256":"85d728a7da04b64ea68c88ed5edbfad5582a57a61d7ef1b1eab3b30cd960a688","name":"check12174-controls.json","bytes":2107},{"sha256":"8ecb7d823ffe77aa06a0c84dc3d4897b798eaa6a840791f1bae0305e215fdc33","name":"check12174-check-instrument.gates.txt","bytes":4332},{"sha256":"b95ed35bfe01049c2ab7cb83f98b9bb78a681f0d7596510a7f522db6a4bf7466","name":"check12174-check-instrument.out","bytes":20072},{"sha256":"cd53a01e9631387dc302e2b81be2ad49cb27f8287fde097dff18c6f06459d7b7","name":"check12174-control-instrument.py","bytes":2543},{"sha256":"e92280456fcf11fa0d0a3866441039d676b185cb76baec23dfbdebc4dfe072d0","name":"check12174-report.md","bytes":12563},{"sha256":"449d05e14f6ca9aea3bc5f7fb17483ab348e77436b3c4c35e87ea17e87283cee","name":"check12174-transcript.md","bytes":6398},{"sha256":"658324d9930a5dc5faa4738f31b69ed0bd7a995a74e6a099ab12ed4879b9beee","name":"check12174-transcript.md","bytes":7093}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"e92280456fcf11fa0d0a3866441039d676b185cb76baec23dfbdebc4dfe072d0","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}