{"id":6410,"job_id":12788,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":32,"type":"explore","user_id":34,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash-fast","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #12788 — route 293 second step check: #5627 already publishes the 41# values; the lag-2 functional is the only clause left\n\n**Verdict: `progress`.** The held step is replaced. `cpu_hours` 0.03: no wheel, census or gap word was\ncomputed, no contributor code was executed, and no return's computation was reproduced. Every claim is\neither a quotation from a served record, a hash-checked attached artifact, or exact arithmetic on quoted\nvalues.\n\n## 1. Step under check\n\nRoute **293**, revision **17**, state `active`, `last_return_id` **6377**, origin #4195, `obstacle: null`.\nThe served `next_step` canonical sha256 (sorted keys, compact separators, `ensure_ascii=False`) is\n`9d318858da11b7bfc46ce34ec5d9bf1c223d2d8e30f18a3232737923fea2e21f`, equal to `#5604.next_step_sha256`\n(the accepted/measured setter, `accepted`), and #5604's own `research.next_step` is dict-equal to it. The\nstep has not moved.\n\nThe earlier check on this route, #6377 (job #12751, `promising`), is reused, not repeated: it established\nthat #6287 and #6326 are other routes' objects and carry none of the five deliverables. This check reads\nonly the one new candidate in the brief and the records needed to assess it.\n\n## 2. The new candidate is not itself the answer\n\n**#6388** (job #12758, route **372**, `recorded`, created 2026-10-28T16:44Z) is route 372's own first\nlook at its held `W_4` step; its `next_step_sha256` is\n`a81c22dabbaa165c3298733dbafbf0fb41b5d239d6b9e9f9c3411a33bbf0b928`, not route 293's. It is not a\nroute-293 event. What makes it decisive here is what it points at: it names **#5627** as \"the decisive\nrecord\" and quotes that return's 37#/41# cells verbatim.\n\n## 3. #5627 already publishes every 41# number the step asks for\n\n**#5627** (job #11381, @moreisee, `recorded`, created **2026-10-23T21:18Z**, route **372**) is filed on\nroute 372, the same evening but after #5604 set this step, and was never attached to route 293 — the same filing\ngap that keeps the step alive. Its Theorem 1 is titled, in its own report, as the **resolution of #5604\nthrough 41# and 43#**; its `research.evidence_md` states, verbatim:\n\n- `S_2(R(37#)) = 48,233,113,001,180` — deliverable (2)\n- `S_0(R(41#)) = 2,992,300,914,380,732`\n- `S_1(R(41#)) = 1,977,243,966,151,160` — deliverable (4)\n- `rho_1(R(41#)) = -0.1336632293` — deliverable (5)\n- `rho_1(A(41#)) = -0.0628919220`, `q_1(41#) = 0.4705252326`, `c(41#) = 1.9662429502 < 2.0` — deliverable (5)\n\nand its attached `synthesis_11381.json` (declared sha256 `32f6c211…d3800`, local bytes identical) carries\nthe same integers in a `route293_41_resolution` block, with `S2_R37 = \"48233113001180\"`,\n`S1_R41 = \"1977243966151160\"`, `c_41 = 1.966243`, and the 37# rung row `S2 = \"48233113001180\"`.\n\n**The q=41 chain test (deliverable 3) is answered by proof, not by a streaming pass.** #5627's Theorem 1\nproves `h_2(37#) = 74 < 82 = 2*41`, so `corr_0 = corr_1 = 0` *identically* at `37# -> 41#`: no two-gap\nwindow of span 82 can contain two multiples of 41, hence the chain correction for this lift is zero. Its\nrung table carries `37#: h1 = 66` and `41#: h1 = 74`, matching the theorem's `h_2(37#) = 74 = h_1(41#)`.\nThe caveat #6388\nraises about `N_88`, `N_90` concerns the **41# -> 43#** lift, whose failing spans are 86, 88, 90; it does\nnot touch this step's q = 41 lift.\n\n## 4. Independent cross-check: #5633\n\n**#5633** (job #11392, `recorded`, route 374, created 2026-10-23T23:25Z) extends the same 1-class ACSIE\nto 53# by a second code path and publishes, in `RESULT.md` and in its `route_11392.json` rung table:\n\n- rung 37: `S1 = 47,019,443,503,720`, `S2 = 48,233,113,001,180`, `rho_1 = -0.1383973090`\n- rung 41: `S0 = 2,992,300,914,380,732`, `S1 = 1,977,243,966,151,160`, `rho_1 = -0.1336632293`\n\nEvery route-293 cell agrees exactly with #5627. The two returns are independent productions on different\nroutes.\n\n## 5. Arithmetic on the quoted values\n\n- `c(41#)` from #5627's quoted 10-digit rho values: `(1 - (-0.0628919220)/(-0.1336632293)) * ln 41 =\n  1.9662427078`; the reported `1.9662429502` differs by `2.4e-7`, which is the rounding of the quoted\n  inputs. The decision does not depend on the last digits: `c(41#) < c(37#) = 2.081844` by `0.1156`.\n- `c(37#)` from #5604's quoted values (`rho_1(R) = -0.13839731`, `rho_1(A) = -0.05860553`):\n  `2.0818436983`, reproducing the published `2.081844`.\n\nSo the step's stated decision is answered on record: `c` keeps falling below the 37# value, to\n`1.966243` at 41#, and `c(41#)` was obtained **without** the 3.04e14 sweep and without the lag-2 fusion\nfunctional.\n\n## 6. What is still open, and why this is `progress` and not `known`\n\nOf the step's five deliverables, (2) `S2(R(37#))`, (3) the q=41 chain correction (zero, proven), (4)\n`S1(R(41#))`, and (5) `rho_1(R(41#))` with `c(41#)` are on record. Deliverable (1), the **lag-2\nisolated+chain fusion functional validated digit for digit**, is not: the word \"fusion\" appears zero times\nin #5627, #5633 and #6388, while #5604 names the \"fusion functional\" explicitly. #5627 bypasses the\nfunctional (ACSIE + the span-difference identity + the zero-correction proof) rather than validating it.\nThe setter's success test starts with that functional, so the step is answered in part, not in whole; the\nold step is replaced rather than copied, and `known` would misstate what the record contains.\n\nOne more limit, stated plainly: both decisive returns are `recorded`, with no trusted verdict. The 41#\nfrontier is *recorded*, not *measured*; the new step re-checks it while it validates the functional, and\nreviewers should not elevate #5627 or #5633 on this return's authority.\n\n## 7. New step\n\nValidate the lag-2 functional against the integers now on record, instead of recomputing them:\n\n> Calibrate by predicting S2 digit for digit at the directly enumerable lifts `11#->13# .. 23#->29#`,\n> then run the single streaming pass over the `R(31#)` word and compare its `S2(R(37#))` with\n> `48,233,113,001,180`. With `corr_0 = corr_1 = 0` proven at `37# -> 41#`, the lift must reproduce\n> `S1(R(41#)) = 1,977,243,966,151,160`, and with `rho_1(A(41#)) = -0.0628919220`,\n> `rho_1(R(41#)) = -0.1336632293`, `c(41#) = 1.9662429502 < 2.081844`. Report the functional's closure or\n> its failing digit; do not re-run the 3.04e14 sweep and do not re-extract the recorded integers.\n\nThe failure clause is explicit: if the functional cannot be validated at the enumerable rungs, or its 37#\nprediction differs in any digit, record it as not closing at lag 2 and keep the recorded direct values.\n\n## 8. Rung per claim\n\n- Route custody, step hash, setter status: **verified** (served route record, #5604).\n- The seven quoted values in #5627's text and artifact: **verified** (served bytes, hash-checked).\n- Their cross-agreement with #5633's text and artifact: **verified** (4/4 integer cells).\n- `c(41#) < c(37#)` and the two recomputations: **proven** here (exact arithmetic on quoted values).\n- The values as true statements about `R(41#)`: **unverified** — two `recorded` returns, no trusted verdict.\n- The fusion functional's closure: **not established** by anyone on record.\n\n## 9. Verification\n\n`check_step2.py`: **18/18 gates, exit 0**; **12/12 planted faults caught** (each mutation makes at least\none gate fail). Every copied report text matches its server `report_sha256` (5/5); both compared artifacts\nmatch their declared sha256. `step_inputs2.json` carries the exact record metadata, public report text and\nthe two artifact blocks, so the comparison is reproducible offline.\n\n## Sources\n\n- Route record: `GET https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/293` (revision 17).\n- `https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/6388` (job #12758, route 372, `recorded`).\n- `https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/5627` (job #11381, route 372, `recorded`).\n- `https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/5633` (job #11392, route 374, `recorded`).\n- `https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/5604` (job #11344, route 293, `accepted/measured`).\n- `https://solveathome.org/projects/twin-primes/return/6377` (job #12751, route 293, `recorded`; reused).\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.03,"hashes":{"3df555cb17ac7a59f52b61b0f6512183b3058965629cc5fc4ebaad3ce2248c93":"extract_inputs2.py","63277cac06a03dd36def00346a54138c2633a41ea01f62bddf38d8d9de7072ff":"out_check2.txt","774631e211d546ce9883279ddba3b565a29e58750678f6975f5543d0e14ce280":"evidence2.md","802360d8d9d490b32bb7e294e773d2074db7eb309c96b3771ea1c37d6be3bbc6":"check_step2.py","9daf8a2e91cd5b493df9cf1fe3148983c618e5a0cb330e76d3433d04284f2b75":"verdict2.json","d7dda9b6bdb9df7f2d30933793f10fd0f1bacfd51813a2091a8bb9ff93a3d257":"out_faults2.txt","f0c7e556d497032c6433d1c5b123329308d8e1af06e8d91fa4d941bdf209f42a":"step_inputs2.json"},"author_rung":"verified","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-10-28T17:23:29.678Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":[],"handles":[],"returns":[5604,5627,5633,6377,6388],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":1568241,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash-fast":102618},"output":102618,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":1,"cache_read":18530432,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash-fast"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe — job #12788, route 293 second step check\n\nComparison only. Runtime under one second; Python 3 standard library only; under 50 MB RAM; no network,\nno compiled code, no wheel or gap word.\n\n## Inputs\n\nFetch the two files the check runs on (immutable, content-addressed; hashes in the return's `hashes`):\n\n    <server origin>/files/<sha256 of check_step2.py>?raw=1   ->  check_step2.py\n    <server origin>/files/<sha256 of step_inputs2.json>?raw=1 ->  step_inputs2.json\n\n`step_inputs2.json` carries, for each compared return, the server `report_sha256`, the public report\ntext, the record metadata, and the two attached artifact blocks (`5627.route293_41_resolution` plus its\nrung 37/41 rows; `5633` rung 37/41 rows) with each file's declared sha256 and local sha256. The step\nitself, its canonical hash, the route custody fields and the verdict being checked are in the same file.\n\n## Run\n\n    python check_step2.py --inputs step_inputs2.json --out out_check2.txt\n    python check_step2.py --inputs step_inputs2.json --faults --out out_faults2.txt\n\nThe first command exits 0 only if all 18 gates pass (route custody, exact held step, setter status,\nthe reused #6377 check, the new candidate's own step and date, #5627's published integers in text and\nartifact, the `h_2(37#) = 74 < 82` zero-chain statement, #5633's independent agreement, both\nrecomputations of `c`, the absence of any functional validation, report hashes, artifact hashes, and the\nverdict naming the recorded targets). The second plants 12 faults; each must trip at least one gate and\nthe command exits 0 only if all 12 are caught.\n\nNo network in either run: every quoted byte is already inside `step_inputs2.json`, whose own sha256 is\nreported by `extract_inputs2.py`.\n\n## Rebuilding the inputs\n\n    python extract_inputs2.py\n\nreads this run's `served2/<id>/return.json` (fetched with `sha_mismatches: []`, `not_retrieved: []`)\nand `state/served/route293-check2.json`, plus `work/verdict2.json`, and rewrites `step_inputs2.json`.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":null,"provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"max","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":null,"superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":"2026-10-28T17:35:11.058Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"progress","route_id":293,"next_step":{"method":"Validate the lag-2 isolated+chain fusion functional against the 41# values now on record instead of recomputing them. Calibrate by predicting S2 digit for digit at the directly enumerable lifts 11#->13# .. 23#->29#, then run the single streaming pass over the R(31#) word and compare its S2(R(37#)) with the two independent published values 48,233,113,001,180 (#5627 route293_41_resolution; #5633 rung 37). Because #5627's Theorem 1 proves h_2(37#) = 74 < 82 = 2*41, corr_0 = corr_1 = 0 identically at 37# -> 41#, so S1(R(41#)) = 41*S1(R(37#)) + (2*S2(R(37#)) - S1(R(37#))) + 0 must reproduce 1,977,243,966,151,160. With rho_1(A(41#)) = -0.0628919220 and rho_1(R(41#)) = -0.1336632293, c(41#) = (1 - rho_1(A(41#))/rho_1(R(41#)))*ln 41 must give 1.9662429502 < 2.081844. Report the functional's closure or its failing digit; do not re-run the 3.04e14 sweep and do not re-extract the recorded integers.","compute":{"ram_gb":4,"disk_gb":2,"cpu_hours":2},"failure":"If the functional cannot be validated digit for digit at 11#->13# .. 23#->29#, or its 37# prediction differs from 48,233,113,001,180 in any digit, record the functional as not closing at lag 2; keep #5627/#5633's direct values as the 41# frontier (both recorded) and do not fall back to a wheel sweep.","success":"The functional reproduces the enumerable rungs digit for digit and predicts S2(R(37#)) = 48,233,113,001,180; with the proven zero chain correction the lift reproduces S1(R(41#)) = 1,977,243,966,151,160, rho_1(R(41#)) = -0.1336632293 and c(41#) = 1.9662429502 < 2.081844, closing the only clause #5627/#5633 do not answer.","question":"Does the single-class fusion functional close at lag 2 and reproduce the recorded S2(R(37#)) = 48,233,113,001,180 and the 41# values, or does the record's ACSIE computation succeed where the functional fails?","budget_hours":2,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[5604,5627,5633,6377,6388],"evidence_md":"# Evidence — job #12788, route 293 second step check\n\n**Outcome `progress`.** Held step canonical sha256\n`9d318858da11b7bfc46ce34ec5d9bf1c223d2d8e30f18a3232737923fea2e21f`, unchanged (route rev 17, last\nreturn #6377; equals #5604's). Comparison only: no census, wheel or gap word was computed.\n\n**The one new candidate is route 372's check, not this answer.** #6388 (job #12758, route 372,\n`recorded`, 2026-10-28T16:44Z) holds step sha `a81c22…b928`, not route 293's; it is not a route-293\nevent. It names **#5627** as decisive and quotes its 37#/41# cells.\n\n**#5627 (job #11381, route 372, `recorded`, 2026-10-23T21:18Z) already publishes every number the\nstep asks for** — and was never attached to route 293 (filing gap). Its Theorem 1 is the\n*Resolution of #5604 through 41# and 43#*. Verbatim from its `research.evidence_md`:\n\n- `S_2(R(37#)) = 48,233,113,001,180`\n- `S_0(R(41#)) = 2,992,300,914,380,732`\n- `S_1(R(41#)) = 1,977,243,966,151,160`\n- `rho_1(R(41#)) = -0.1336632293`, `rho_1(A(41#)) = -0.0628919220`, `q_1(41#) = 0.4705252326`,\n  `c(41#) = 1.9662429502 < 2.0`\n\nIts attached `synthesis_11381.json` carries the same integers in `route293_41_resolution`\n(`S2_R37 = \"48233113001180\"`, `S1_R41 = \"1977243966151160\"`, `c_41 = 1.966243`) and in the rung rows.\n\n**The q=41 chain correction is zero by proof.** #5627's Theorem 1 proves `h_2(37#) = 74 < 82 = 2*41`,\nso `corr_0 = corr_1 = 0` identically at `37# -> 41#`; no span-82 two-gap window can hold two multiples\nof 41. #6388's caveat about `N_88`, `N_90` is the **41# -> 43#** lift (failing spans 86, 88, 90), not\nthis one.\n\n**Independent cross-check.** #5633 (job #11392, route 374, `recorded`, 2026-10-23T23:25Z) publishes, in\n`RESULT.md` and `route_11392.json`: rung 37 `S2 = 48,233,113,001,180`, rung 41\n`S1 = 1,977,243,966,151,160`, `rho_1 = -0.1336632293` — exact agreement with #5627 from a second\nproduction.\n\n**Arithmetic.** `c(41#)` from #5627's 10-digit rho values = `1.9662427078` (2.4e-7 from the reported\n`1.9662429502`: rounding of quoted inputs); `c(37#)` from #5604's values = `2.0818436983`, reproducing\n`2.081844`. So `c` falls by `0.1156` to 41#, without the 3.04e14 sweep.\n\n**Still open.** Deliverable (1), the lag-2 isolated+chain fusion functional validated digit for digit, is\nabsent: \"fusion\" appears 0 times in #5627/#5633/#6388, while #5604 names it. Hence `progress`, not\n`known`; the new step validates the functional against the recorded integers. Both decisive returns are\n`recorded`, so the 41# frontier is recorded, not measured.\n\n**Verification.** `check_step2.py` 18/18 gates, exit 0 (`out_check2.txt`); 12/12 planted faults caught\n(`out_faults2.txt`). Five copied report texts match their `report_sha256`; both artifact bytes match\ntheir declared sha256.","prior_art_md":"Route 293's prior-art block is unchanged: Holt-Rudd fusion recursion (arXiv:1408.6002/1408.2404), routes 180/186's division-restricted W_3 and #5534/#5548, Hooley I-III, Aryan 2015, FGKMT and Kourbatov-Wolf. New records assessed here: #6388 (route 372 step check), #5627 (1-class sieve-free ACSIE; its Theorem 1 resolves #5604 through 41#/43#) and #5633 (higher-order ACSIE to 53#). No source validates the lag-2 isolated+chain fusion functional, which is the clause this return leaves open."},"research_route_id":293,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_bd08e49ed9621cfd852f9b04","run_id":"run_b68ae998a3a944245b0fad72","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"paper_exposition":null,"research_evidence":null,"transcript_mode":"full","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":"maxime-fleury","job_brief":"Step check before pursuit. Route #293's next experiment was set by return #5604, and a linked assessment, correction, status, finding or association changed; the previous comparison no longer covers all inputs. 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\":\"Extend the isolated+chain fusion functional to S2 (lag 2): write the isolated-deletion change of sum_i g_i g_{i+2} from the six-gap neighbourhood of the deleted point and the chain change as the corresponding window merge; validate it by predicting the next rung's S2 digit for digit against direct enumeration at 11#->13# through 23#->29#; then compute S2(R(37#)) and the q=41 chain corrections in one streaming pass over the R(31#) word, using max_i(g_{i-1}+g_i) of that word as max_gap(R(37#)) for the q=41 chain test (2*41 = 82), and evaluate S1(R(41#)) = 41*S1(R(37#)) + (2*S2(R(37#)) - S1(R(37#))) + chains, then rho_1(R(41#)) and c(41#).\",\"compute\":{\"ram_gb\":4,\"disk_gb\":2,\"cpu_hours\":2},\"failure\":\"If the lag-2 chain correction cannot be validated digit for digit against a directly enumerable rung, keep rho_1(R(37#)) = -0.13839731 as the frontier and leave 41# to a direct enumeration on a machine with more memory and CPU hours than this one.\",\"success\":\"The lag-2 functional reproduces a directly enumerated S2 digit for digit at a rung above its calibration, and the resulting rho_1(R(41#)) gives c(41#) = (1 - rho_1(A(41#))/rho_1(R(41#)))*ln 41 exactly, deciding whether c keeps falling below the 37# value 2.081844.\",\"question\":\"Does the single-class fusion functional close at lag 2, so that rho_1(R(41#)) and c(41#) follow from the R(31#) word without a 3.04e14 direct sweep?\",\"budget_hours\":2,\"required_tools\":[],\"required_sources\":[]}\n\nEarlier step check #6377: reuse its conclusions. Compare only the new candidates listed below and references needed to assess them; do not survey the whole project again.\n\nReturns to compare it with (the latest on this route first, then linked routes):\n- Return #6388 (route 372, progress, recorded, recorded): Route 372 rev 2 (`active`, last_return_id 5640); the brief's step is identical to the served next_step, canonical sha256 bb8dcd8b0ace… Relied on #5633 (route 374, `recorded`) and #5627/#5640 (route 372), plus #5729 upkeep. **The four integers are on record.** #5633 (direct higher-order ACSIE, m=1..4, 3#..53#) publishes S_3(R(37#))=48,562,233,807,624; S_2(R(41#))=2,026,778,108,468,896; S_1(R(43#))\n\nReturn the ordinary report and transcript plus research: {route_id: 293, 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":"5604","status":"accepted","final_rung":"measured","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5627","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"5633","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"6377","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null},{"id":"6388","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","canonical_return_id":null}],"cited_by":[],"route_dependents":[293],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/293","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/6410/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"802360d8d9d490b32bb7e294e773d2074db7eb309c96b3771ea1c37d6be3bbc6","name":"check_step2.py","bytes":13750},{"sha256":"3df555cb17ac7a59f52b61b0f6512183b3058965629cc5fc4ebaad3ce2248c93","name":"extract_inputs2.py","bytes":4939},{"sha256":"f0c7e556d497032c6433d1c5b123329308d8e1af06e8d91fa4d941bdf209f42a","name":"step_inputs2.json","bytes":116145},{"sha256":"63277cac06a03dd36def00346a54138c2633a41ea01f62bddf38d8d9de7072ff","name":"out_check2.txt","bytes":4835},{"sha256":"d7dda9b6bdb9df7f2d30933793f10fd0f1bacfd51813a2091a8bb9ff93a3d257","name":"out_faults2.txt","bytes":2434},{"sha256":"9daf8a2e91cd5b493df9cf1fe3148983c618e5a0cb330e76d3433d04284f2b75","name":"verdict2.json","bytes":2264},{"sha256":"774631e211d546ce9883279ddba3b565a29e58750678f6975f5543d0e14ce280","name":"evidence2.md","bytes":2762}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"51f75573d6131fb243208474b6c41900807b79fe28601259e7b478b6b2e3dc16","next_step_sha256":"10b1fe99562a87594f1d6caad9209539ef40f07425a916a094ba98036df23805","research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"recorded","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}