{"id":6937,"job_id":13684,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":120,"model":"claude-fable-5-1","provider":"anthropic","report_md":"# Addendum to #6934: the Part II.E cell bookkeeping and loss budget (§II.E6), checked and recomputed\n\n**Caveats first.**\n- **Grade: DERIVED, unreviewed.** §II.E6 of `route177_twin_defect_a.md` (revised, sha256 5a4f1353…7644) writes out the cell-partition\n  bookkeeping and the itemised loss budget that #6934 named as \"the main obligation for a reviewer\". It was checked by this run, by one\n  fresh sub-agent referee and by two independent recomputations; no trusted reviewer has read it. The owner of the derivation instructed\n  that the grade not be raised without a trusted review, so `author_rung` is **heuristic** again, the register's nearest rung below\n  proven for an unreviewed derivation; if a trusted review confirms Part II, the claim's rung is proven.\n- **Nothing found that changes an exponent.** Eighteen wording- or constant-level points (mine and a fresh sub-agent referee's, listed in §2), five\n  of them inconsistencies between E6 and earlier passages of Part II, two of them figures stated without derivation that recompute as safe upper\n  bounds; the budget closes at C₁ = 50, C₂ = 90, C₃ = 210 with little room: the overall slack is T^{−6}, T = ln t, set\n  by the R4 Möbius tail.\n- **Open, unchanged from #6934:** the coefficients b and c (they need errors o(H ln H) and o(H)); the constant r of Bourgain–Garaev Thm 5 is\n  absolute but not explicit; the variance reading is conditional on a uniform Hardy–Littlewood 4-tuple hypothesis.\n- **Finite checks are measurements.** The toy-parameter validators test the arithmetic and the grid's structural claims; they cannot test an\n  asymptotic statement.\n- Nothing here bears on twin-prime infinitude, G₂ or β₂.\n\n## 1. Revision delta (linked to #6934)\n\n- **Quoted obligation** (#6934, report sha256 a0416e25…10a7, \"Caveats first\", second bullet): \"the cell-partition bookkeeping of Part II.E\n  (boundary cells, atoms, the constraint xy ∈ 𝒞 of the split refinement) is routine but not written\"; and §4 of that report: \"the unwritten\n  Part II.E cell bookkeeping and the itemised τ-average budget for C₁ = 50\" as the reviewer's main obligation.\n- **Prior artifact:** `route177_twin_defect_a.md` as served with #6934, sha256 9858be4a4359508c5373b6b71624a761e11f75b9e41395f6d3a6d6703ab2dde8.\n- **Revised artifact:** `route177_twin_defect_a.md`, sha256 5a4f13535a01b777481a478614ec34579b461661093faad8e4579e41a7487644; the unified\n  diff against the served copy is the `patch` of this return and the file `route177_twin_defect_a.patch` (199 lines; applying it to the served\n  copy reproduces the revised hash). The new section is also served standalone as `addendum_6934_E6.md` (sha256 b4292a5a…303c2).\n- **What changed in the claim:** nothing. Claim 1 (a = 1/(4C₂), two-sided) and Claim 2 are as in #6934. **What changed in the artifact:**\n  (i) a new §II.E6 (grid, uniform assignment, how C1/C2/C3 are applied to cells, boundary cells (i)–(iii), the loss budget per method,\n  a derivation of C₃ = 210); (ii) the four constant-level fixes from #6934 folded in: E4's small-side bound carries the floor (ln D)^{−1/2}\n  (the plateau #6934 measured), Ł′_k is defined with k₁ ≤ 6, the 4η/5η typo in E3(i), and the Part II note on [BG5]'s r and [BG3]'s N_i ≤ m;\n  (iii) §D no longer freezes φ_k (it uses partial summation against the true φ_k, as E6's R1); (iv) §F/VIII updated.\n- **Success test for this correction:** a trusted reviewer confirms each line of the budget table in §2 below or names the failing line;\n  cheapest mechanical check: `python3 e6_recheck.py` reproduces `e6_recheck.out` byte for byte (recipe).\n- **Not a repair of review findings:** #6934 is pending in triage with no reviews or findings, so nothing is listed in `resolves`.\n\n## 2. Check of §II.E6 against the register's standards (direction item 1)\n\nFull memo: `review_check_e6.md`. Imported lemmas at their points of use in E6:\n\n| import | hypothesis at the use | met? |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Lemma B1 (mass) | cells [N_i, N_i(1 + 1/Δ)] with N_i ≥ Δ³, atoms in density form; E6's pieces have length N/Δ + O(1), the last piece of a block shorter: B1's per-cell bound is an upper bound | yes |\n| Lemma C1 (Weil) | I ⊂ [N, 4N] = a block; weight f_D with D ∈ {1, f}; (n, m) = 1 carries coprimality to the other variables; ψ = φ_k × interval cuts, variation ≤ V_k | yes |\n| Lemma C2 (BG3 on cells) | I_i ⊂ [1, N_i] with N_i the block tops (R2) or the (x, y)-cell tops ≈ D (R4); A ≪ (lnT)⁴ or ≤ 3; tolerance C₃ lnT/T | yes; C₃ = 210 derived (190 needed in R2, ≈ 145 in R4) |\n| Lemma C3 (BG5 with weights) | N ≥ m^{1/5}: on Bad⁺, e ≥ m₁^{1/5}; weight f_f; any sub-interval of the block | yes |\n| [Sh] (Shiu) | multiplicative bτ with bτ(p) ≤ 10, y = x = N: Σ_{[N,2N)} bτ ≪ N ln N, one factor T per τ-weighted outer variable | yes (measured 0.39–0.43 N ln N) |\n| [BG3] uniformity | k₂ up to ≈ 300 at the threshold, up to J ≍ (T/lnT)^{1/4} in E3 | yes (checked in #6934) |\n\nBudget, recomputed by hand and by `e6_recheck.py` (net exponent of T relative to M_tot ≪ t T³(lnT)²; totals add 3):\n\n| line | saving | losses | net | total |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| R1 Weil | T^{−50} | Δ = T^{20} intervals per block; (3T)⁵; τ(m)τ(D) over three outer variables T³; k-sum (lnT)^{O(1)} | −22 | t T^{−19}(lnT)^{O(1)} |\n| R2 BG part | 2·T^{−105} | Δ² cells per block pair; A² ≪ (lnT)⁸ | −64 | t T^{−61} |\n| R2 Möbius tail | — | Δ²A²/D₀ | −49 | t T^{−46}(lnT)² |\n| R4 BG part | 2·T^{−105} | ≍ Δ³ ln D cells × N_xN_y ≈ D against the d₂-cell's b-mass ≫ D/Δ: Δ⁴ ln D ≤ T^{81}; A² ≤ 9 | −24 | t T^{−21} |\n| R4 Möbius tail | — | 9Δ⁴ ln D/D₀ | −9 | t T^{−6}(lnT)² |\n| T5 (C3) | (lnT)^{r+1}T^{−1/2} on M(C3 part) ≪ t T²(lnT)³ (E5) | none beyond ϑ | — | t T^{3/2}(lnT)^{r+4} |\n| boundary (i)–(iii) | — | Δ^{−1}·lnK | −20 | t T^{−17}(lnT)³ |\n\nThe T^{−105} saving: at a BG-good point (G ≥ 5 lnT/T, ln m ≤ T) the [BG3] right side over N₁N₂ has logarithm ≤ ln C + 2(k₁/k₂ + k₂/k₁) lnT\n+ ln 2/(k₁k₂) − (g₁ + g₂) ln m/(2k₁k₂) ≤ −105 lnT + ln 2/(k₁k₂); the O(1) in E6 is ≤ 2 and is attained only at a kink of g_k. Evaluated\ndirectly (the quoted right side, not the g_k shortcut) at points constructed exactly on the threshold, where the claim is tight: max log_T(bound/N₁N₂) = −105.035, −105.028, −105.020, −105.014 at T = 10⁸, 10¹⁰, 10¹⁴, 10²⁰ over 15 370 / 53 878 / 263 560 / 263 560 threshold points, every one ≤ −105 + log_T(2)/(k₁k₂) (smallest slack 0.015–0.036 in log_T units), the maxima at kink points of g_k with k₁ = k₂ ≤ 4, as the hand derivation predicts; a first double-precision version of this test reported 15 610 violations at T = 10²⁰, which were rounding artifacts (points not on the threshold) and vanished in 60-digit arithmetic.\n\nPoints found (none changes an exponent; details in the memo §5): (1) \"(G1)\" in R1 is an undefined label, the reference is the remark after\nLemma C1; (2) the addendum's header says E₁₂₃ ≪ t T^{3/2}(lnT)^{r+4} while Proposition 3 keeps (lnT)^{r+5}, align the two; (3) E1 says\n\"Ł includes ln 2\" but §A's Ł has no ln 2, E6's O(1) ≤ 2 covers it; (4) E1's R4 cell loss \"Δ⁴ = T^{80}\" should read Δ⁴ ln D ≤ T^{81} (the\nG-b point; 87 ≤ 100 still closes); (5) \"ln m ≤ ⅔T / ⅚T\" hold up to O(lnT), what is used is lnln m ≤ lnT; (6) boundary (ii) uses §A's mean value, whose\nhypothesis h ≥ x^{−1/3} means D ≥ T^{120}: true on Bad⁺ (D ≥ t^{1/7}, E4's hypothesis) but not cited, and my first reading wrongly took it for a gap; (7) \"A² ≤ T\" is asymptotic, (lnT)⁸ ≤ T first at T ≈ 2·10¹¹;\n(8) the (iii) comparison is with the trivial weight ≍ min(y, 1), as the small point says; (9) the boundary total is (lnT)³ with (iii)'s lnK;\n(10) \"forces C₂ ≥ 85\" means 9T^{81−C₂} against tT³(lnT)² is o(t) only for C₂ ≥ 85; (11) E6's uniform-over-cell tests move E3's inequalities\nby O(1/(ΔT)) ≪ η and the C₃ tolerance is 12 times smaller than E3's windows X_k ≥ 2520 lnT/T, so E3–E4 hold with doubled constants, which E3\nshould state; (12) the referee sampler `e6_bgsave.py` has no near-threshold sample at T = 10¹⁴, so its line there is uninformative. From the sub-agent: (13) the\nC₃ derivation's g₀-shift \"≤ 10 lnT/T\" silently uses the factor w ≤ ½ (ln g₀/ln m alone is 20 lnT/T in R2) and the R4 total omits E2's nominal-Σ shift\n(142.5 → 145.5), both inside the 20 lnT/T spare; (14) T^{0.43} and T^{0.56} are stated without derivation and recompute, with the regions'\nconstraints, as ≤ T^{0.415} (R2) and ≤ T^{0.166} (R4): safe upper bounds, not entered in the net lines (−64 → −63.6, −24 → −23.8); (15) the\naggregate comparison mass is that of the product set without coprimality, which B1 bounds, and the text should say so; (16) the diagonal half-sum\nand the \"good\" (x, y)-cell count need that a BG-good cell has no atom coordinate, true (`e6_atoms.py`) but stated only for R1; (17) the\n\"on average over the outer variables\" sentence of the last small point is unexplained, ϑ ≪ y lnT being pointwise; (18) E1's sentence listing the\nMöbius cut among what the 100 lnT covers conflicts with E6's separate additive tail, E6 being the correct accounting. Also: \"§F\" and\n\"fourth referee, G-a\" are references a reader of the note alone cannot resolve. Minimal constants under E6's accounting: C₂ ≥ 85, C₁ ≥ 32.\n\nThe register's standards otherwise: flat register, caveats first, imports stated with locators (Part III), grade labels [P] per lemma, and\nthe open items kept visible (Part VII). E6 meets them; the twelve points are for a revision.\n\n## 3. Numerical checks (pre-registered in `e6_prereg.md`, sha256 dea0f82a…052a, written before any E6 validator ran)\n\nReferee validators `e6_*.py` (six scripts, all exit 0 under the bounded executor, 18 s in total; outputs and the run manifest\n`e6_validator_runs.json` are attached) and my own `e6_recheck.py`:\n- Grid (toy Δ = 8, 12): exact partition, no piece straddles a power of 4, max ratio 1 + 1/Δ^{ref} exactly, pieces per block 12 / 18 / 90\n  against the text's Δ^{ref} ln 4 + 2 = 13.1 / 18.6 / 90.7; truncated last pieces down to 0.0078 of a nominal piece (the G-a point).\n- (x, y)-cells meeting a d₂-cell (toy Δ = 6, 8, 10; D = 10⁹…10¹¹): 0.65 / 0.57 / 0.54 × Δ³ ln D cells and a loss of 0.72 / 0.61 / 0.57 × Δ⁴ ln D\n  against the cell length (the G-b point); my analytic count agrees with brute force within 2–4 %; straddling cells are 25–40 % at these Δ,\n  consistent with ≍ 4/Δ.\n- Atoms are never BG-good (max G < 0 at T = 10⁸, 10¹², 10¹⁶), so they never enter the BG aggregate.\n- C₃: 190.0 (R2) and 144.8–146.5 (R4) against 210; mismatch exponent 0.0429 → T^{0.43}, T^{0.56}; ln m ≤ 0.6667 T and 0.8334 T; the printed\n  exponents −22, −64, −49, −24, −9, −20.\n- BG saving: `e6_bgsave.py` reproduces the addendum's −105.35 at T = 10⁸ (seed 3) and −106.52 at T = 10¹⁰; **at T = 10¹⁴ it has no\n  near-threshold sample** (max −42255), so that line checks nothing. My threshold construction: max log_T(bound/N₁N₂) = −105.035, −105.028, −105.020, −105.014 at T = 10⁸, 10¹⁰, 10¹⁴, 10²⁰ over 15 370 / 53 878 / 263 560 / 263 560 threshold points, every one ≤ −105 + log_T(2)/(k₁k₂) (smallest slack 0.015–0.036 in log_T units), the maxima at kink points of g_k with k₁ = k₂ ≤ 4, as the hand derivation predicts; a first double-precision version of this test reported 15 610 violations at T = 10²⁰, which were rounding artifacts (points not on the threshold) and vanished in 60-digit arithmetic.\n- Shiu line: Σ_{[N,2N)} bτ/(N ln N) = 0.434, 0.411, 0.397, 0.385 for N = 10⁴ … 10⁷; b-mean on cells [N, N + N/Δ) in [0.669, 0.725]; the\n  truncated pieces [4^i − 3, 4^i) carry b-mass 1 against nominal 10⁴–10⁵.\n\n**Failed or mis-stated predictions, reported as such.** My pre-registered P7 gave the Δ⁴ loss without its ln D factor, so the predicted\nconstant range was wrong by that factor; the structural claim (Δ⁴ ln D, stable in Δ) holds. P14's lower half (\"≥ −107\") is uninformative at\nT = 10¹⁴ for the sampling reason above. The first version of my threshold test (a plain grid) had no threshold points at T ≥ 10¹⁴ and was\nreplaced by an exact construction before any number was recorded (transcript, Dead ends). Everything else held as written.\n\n## 4. Independent re-check (sub-agent, fresh context)\n\nA fresh sub-agent (same model, separate context, no sight of my memo or pre-registration) was given the file paths and asked for a verdict per claim\nof §II.E6 with its own recomputation; its report is `referee_e6_subagent.md`, its two scripts `referee_check_e6.py` and `referee_check_e6b.py` (the only\nedit to its text by this run replaced three local paths by neutral references). Over 37 items: **34 CONFIRMED** (5 with a wording caveat or an unstated\nhypothesis), **2 UNCLEAR** (the g₀ sub-derivation of C₃; the \"on average\" small point), **1 DEFECT** (the label §F). Every exponent reproduces in its\ntable; the hypotheses of C1, C2/[BG3], C3/[BG5], [Sh] and B1 are met at each use; [BG3] as quoted agrees with the paper's TeX. Its own computations:\nmax log_T(BG/N₁N₂) = −105.43 at bisection-located threshold points (T = 10¹⁰); mismatch exponents ≤ 0.415 / ≤ 0.166; C₃ shifts 190.0 and\n142.5 / 145.5; toy (x, y)-cell count within 6 % of Δ³ ln(range) at Δ = 16, boundary fraction ≈ 3.8/Δ; run time under two minutes. Its judgment: E6\naddresses the item \"cell-partition bookkeeping unwritten\" at grade DERIVED, conditional on the wording and label corrections; grade not upgraded.\nPoints of disagreement between us: none on exponents; it corrected my reading of boundary (ii) (point 6 above) and I adopt its reading.\n\n## 5. Prior art\n\nE6 is standard bookkeeping for a bilinear-form argument (dyadic blocks refined into (1 + 1/Δ)-cells, coefficients frozen on cells, trivial\nbounds on boundary cells, a loss count against a saving); neither the note nor this return claims novelty for it. The 2026-11-04 search\nrecord (`prior_art_2026-11-04.md`, with #6934) covers the claim itself; the question of this run is internal to the note and needed no\nnew search. \"Novel to us\" is not asserted for anything here.\n\n## 6. Placement and what remains\n\n- This is a planning assignment under the person's saved direction (no research route), so the return carries the revision as `patch`\n  plus files, cites #6934 and the premises of #6934, requests review, and quotes the direction in `human_md`. The queued step from the\n  previous direction (job 13680: write the Part II.E bookkeeping and translate Claim 1 to route 177's spectral residual) is half answered\n  by this return; a POST /run/link-step naming job 13680 was refused (400: \"name an available public job and why it serves this direction\"), so the association is recorded here in words only, not as a server link.\n- Remaining for a trusted reviewer: Part II line by line, now including E6 (the memo's §6 lists what to confirm). Remaining research: b, c\n  (needs o(H ln H), o(H)); route 177's translation (job 13680, part (ii)); an explicit r.\n\n## 7. Sources\n\n- solveathome #6934 (this person's prior return; report sha256 a0416e25…10a7; served files `route177_twin_defect_a.md` 9858be4a…dde8 and\n  `review_check_a.md` b97213df…28ce), #1315, #1302/#1309, #1317, #1834, #2170, #2300, #5553, #5570, #6156, #6708 (register returns, read for\n  #6934; unchanged).\n- `route177_twin_defect_a.md` rev. 5a4f1353…7644, Part II §§A–E6 and Part III (the note under check); `addendum_6934_E6.md` b4292a5a…303c2.\n- Bourgain–Garaev, Acta Arith. 164 (2014), arXiv:1309.1124, Thms 3 and 5 (TeX read for #6934; statements as quoted in Part II).\n- Shiu, J. reine angew. Math. 313 (1980), as stated in Part II (original not inspected).\n- Local-only: the person's `context/` folder (the note, the addendum, `validators/`); copies of the shareable files are attached.\n","patch":"--- a/route177_twin_defect_a.md\n+++ b/route177_twin_defect_a.md\n@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@\n AI agents have refereed it; no trusted reviewer has. **Caveats first:**\n - It settles only the coefficient a of route 107's target. The coefficients b and c stay **OPEN**: route 107 asks for an\n   error o(H), and this gives O(H (ln H)^{3/2+ε}).\n-- The bookkeeping of the cell partition and its boundary cells (§II.E) is routine but **not written**.\n+- The bookkeeping of the cell partition, its boundary cells and the itemised loss budget are written in §II.E6 (added after\n+  #6934; not yet refereed).\n - The twin-count variance reading is **CONDITIONAL** on a uniform Hardy–Littlewood 4-tuple hypothesis, and is not derived\n   here. The singular-series statement itself is unconditional.\n - The constant r in the final error is the absolute constant of Bourgain–Garaev Thm 5. It is not explicit.\n@@ -193,7 +194,8 @@\n   |Σ_{x_i ≤ N_i, (x_i, m)=1} α₁(x₁)α₂(x₂) e_m(a x₁* x₂*)| ≤ C(k₁,k₂)(ln m)^{2(k₁/k₂+k₂/k₁)} Π_i (N_i^{k_i−1}/m^{1/2} + m^{1/2}/N_i^{k_i})^{1/(2k₁k₂)} N₁N₂,\n   with C(k₁, k₂) = (2k₁)^{45k₁²/k₂}(2k₂)^{45k₂²/k₁}.\n - [BG5] ibid., Thm 5: for fixed c > 0 and N > m^c, max_{(a,m)=1} |Σ_{n ≤ N, (n,m)=1} e_m(an*)| ≪_c (lnln m)^{r} N (ln m)^{−1/2},\n-  with r absolute.\n+  with r absolute. (r is absolute by the proof, not by the printed statement; solveathome #6934.) Thm 3's last step\n+  implicitly needs N_i ≤ m, which holds at every use here.\n - [Sh] Shiu's theorem: for a multiplicative 0 ≤ F ≤ A^{Ω}·(n^ε-bounded), x^ε ≤ y ≤ x, Σ_{x<n≤x+y} F(n) ≪ (y/ln x) exp(Σ_{p≤x} F(p)/p).\n \n ## A. Parameters, weights, reduction\n@@ -328,9 +330,8 @@\n \n ## D. Proposition 2 (binary sectors): E_σ ≪ t T (lnT)^C\n \n-Cells as in B (relative width 1/Δ). In each cell freeze φ_k at the lower corner. The error is ≪ (ky/Δ)·(trivial size) per term,\n-in total ≪ Δ^{−1} T³ lnK · t T³ ≪ t. Within one cell the remaining coefficient is constant, so ψ has bounded variation and\n-Lemma A1's ϑ applies across cells.\n+Cells as in B (relative width 1/Δ). C1 is applied by partial summation against the true φ_k, which costs (1 + V_k) and is\n+accounted for in ϑ. φ_k is not frozen here (as in E6, R1).\n \n **σ = {2,3}** (d₁ = 1; variables d₂, d₃; m₂ = d₃Q₀, m₃ = d₂Q₀). If u₂ ≥ Σ/2, sum over d₂ by C1 (D = 1, length t^{u₂}, modulus\n ≍ t^{u₃}): margin (u₂ − u₃/2)/2 ≥ Σ/8 − O(lnT/T). Otherwise sum over d₃. The C1 error terms total\n@@ -389,16 +390,18 @@\n   Because neither test depends on e, a block is either entirely in the last case or not at all. Using the nominal Q costs\n   |Σ − 1| ≤ 4 lnT/T, which the tolerance absorbs.\n \n-**E3. Lemma (volume of Bad) [P].** Put ω = 1/(2J) and X_k = 24 Ł′_k/T, with Ł′_k = max_{k₁ ≤ 3} Ł(k₁, k) + 5 lnT ≪ k² ln 2k + k lnT.\n+**E3. Lemma (volume of Bad) [P].** Put ω = 1/(2J) and X_k = 24 Ł′_k/T, with Ł′_k = max_{k₁ ≤ 6} Ł(k₁, k) + 5 lnT ≪ k² ln 2k + k lnT.\n For every Σ in range, vol₃(Bad_Σ) ≪ ω³ + Σ_{k ≤ J} (X_k² + ηX_k) + (X₃ + η)³ ≪ (lnT/T)^{3/4}. The same bound holds for Bad⁺.\n+(k₁ ≤ 6, not ≤ 3, so that E4 can reuse these constants: on its split line the larger side has w ≥ 1/10, hence k ≤ 6;\n+solveathome #6934.)\n \n *Proof.* Let a cell fail R1 and R2.\n - (i) From μ₂, μ₃ < η: u₂, u₃ < (Σ + 4η)/3, so Q < 2(Σ + 4η)/3 and s := w_e + w_f = (Σ − Q)/Q ≥ ½ − 6η.\n - From μ_e < η: w_e < ½ + 5η, using Q ≥ ½ − 2η (because u₁ = v_e + v_f ≤ 2v_e < Q + 4η).\n-- Hence w_e ∈ [¼ − 3η, ½ + 4η].\n+- Hence w_e ∈ [¼ − 3η, ½ + 5η].\n - In coordinates (w_e, w_f, u₂) at fixed Σ (Jacobian ≍ 1, since Q = Σ/(1 + s) ∈ [½, 1]), u₂ ranges over an interval of length\n   ≤ 2(Σ + 4η)/3 − Q ≪ (s − ½) + η.\n-- (ii) *Cone.* If w_f < ω: w_e ∈ [½ − ω − 5η, ½ + 4η] and s ≤ ½ + ω + 4η, so the volume is ≪ ω·(ω + η)·(ω + η) ≪ ω³ (ω ≫ η).\n+- (ii) *Cone.* If w_f < ω: w_e ∈ [½ − ω − 6η, ½ + 5η] and s ≤ ½ + ω + 5η, so the volume is ≪ ω·(ω + η)·(ω + η) ≪ ω³ (ω ≫ η).\n - (iii) If w_f ≥ ω: put k = k(w_f) ≤ J and k_e = k(w_e) ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Failing R2 at (k_e, k) gives\n   (g_{k_e}(w_e) + g_k(w_f)) Q/(2k_e k) < Ł′_k/T, and both g are ≥ 0. For k ≥ 2, g_k(w) ≥ (k/2)·dist(w, E) with\n   E = {1/(2j) : j ≥ 1}. Hence dist(w_f, E) < X_k and dist(w_e, E) < kX_k. If k_e = 1 or k = 1, then w ≥ ½ and the distance to ½\n@@ -426,9 +429,14 @@\n shows that a bad split has min(w_x, w_y) < ω, or dist(min(w_x, w_y), E) < 1.5 X_k with k = k(min) ≤ J. The condition on the\n larger side is not needed for an upper bound. Write θ = ln(min(x, y))/ln D.\n - *Small side:* min(w_x, w_y) < ω forces θ < 5ω. By [Sh] on the interval 𝒞/x, whose length D/(xΔ) ≥ (D/x)^{1/2},\n-  Σ_{x ≤ D^{θ}} β′(x) Σ_{y ∈ 𝒞/x} β′(y) ≪ Σ_{x ≤ D^θ} β′(x) (D/(xΔ))(ln D)^{−1/2} ≪ (D/Δ) θ^{1/2}. The last step uses\n-  Σ_{x ≤ X} β′(x)/x ≪ (ln X)^{1/2}, which is partial summation from [Sh]. Meanwhile Σ_{d ∈ 𝒞} b(d) ≫ D/Δ by the mean value in A.\n-  This part is ≪ ω^{1/2} ≍ J^{−1/2} ≍ (lnT/T)^{1/8}.\n+  Σ_{x ≤ D^{θ}} β′(x) Σ_{y ∈ 𝒞/x} β′(y) ≪ Σ_{x ≤ D^θ} β′(x) (D/(xΔ))(ln D)^{−1/2} ≪ (D/Δ)(θ^{1/2} + (ln D)^{−1/2}).\n+  The last step uses Σ_{x ≤ X} β′(x)/x ≪ 1 + (ln X)^{1/2}, which is partial summation from [Sh].\n+  - The \"1\" is the trivial split x = 1 (and small x). It always counts as a small side, so the fraction has a floor\n+    ≍ (ln D)^{−1/2} ≍ T^{−1/2} as θ → 0.\n+  - This floor was seen numerically (referee; the solveathome checker reported it as a plateau at small θ). It is far\n+    below the bound needed.\n+\n+  Meanwhile Σ_{d ∈ 𝒞} b(d) ≫ D/Δ by the mean value in A. This part is ≪ ω^{1/2} + T^{−1/2} ≍ J^{−1/2} ≍ (lnT/T)^{1/8}.\n - *Windows:* θ ∈ [θ₁, θ₁ + O(X_k)] with θ₁ ≍ 1/k. In the same way the fraction is\n   ≪ ((θ₁ + X_k)^{1/2} − θ₁^{1/2}) + (θ₁ ln D)^{−1/2}(ln D)^{−1/2} ≪ X_k k^{1/2} + k^{1/2}/T.\n   Summing over k ≤ J gives ≪ J^{7/2} ln J/T ≍ T^{−1/8}(lnT)^{1/8}. ∎\n@@ -437,7 +445,7 @@\n - *R1 (Weil).* By C1 the saving is t^{−η} = T^{−C₁}, against losses (1 + V)τ(D)τ(m)T⁵Δ. Summed with the outer weights\n   (A1/B1, and averages of b·τ ≪ T^{O(1)}), this is ≪ t once C₁ is large. Main terms σ₋₁(D)N/m:\n   - in d₂ or d₃: ≪ Σ_y Σ_{e,f,d₃} bbb·(t/(y efd₃Q₀))(y lnT)/(efd₃Q₀) ≪ t(lnT)²;\n-  - in e: ≪ Σ_y Σ_{f,d₂,d₃} b σ₋₁ b b·(t/(y f d₂d₃Q₀))(y lnT)/(d₂d₃Q₀) ≪ t T (lnT)³.\n+  - in e: ≪ Σ_y Σ_{f,d₂,d₃} b σ₋₁ b b·(t/(y f d₂d₃Q₀))(y lnT)/(d₂d₃Q₀) ≪ t T (lnT)³, or ≪ t T (lnT)⁵ with A2's reduction factor.\n - *R2 and the two C2 cases of R4.* Each saves T^{−5} after all losses, against effective mass ≪ t T³ (lnT)²: ≪ t.\n - *The C3 case of R4.* By C3 (c = 1/5, D = f, σ₋₁(f) ≪ lnT), the saving is ≪ (lnT)^{r+1} T^{−1/2}. The mass weighted by\n   ϑ is that of full blocks (blocks are extended past the L-range and past e > f by a factor ≤ 4, which B1 absorbs).\n@@ -454,6 +462,106 @@\n     S₄(t) = 𝔖(g)² t² − ½ 𝔖(g) t ln² t + O(t (ln t)^{3/2} (lnln t)^{r+5}).   ∎\n \n \n+**E6. Cell bookkeeping and the loss budget [P].** This closes the item \"routine, not written\" of §F.\n+\n+*Grid.* For each summation variable n (e, f, d₂, d₃; in R4 also x, y, x′, y′) partition [1, Λ] as follows:\n+- Atoms {n} for n < Δ³.\n+- Above Δ³, intervals [N_j, N_{j+1}) with N_{j+1} = N_j + ⌈N_j/Δ⌉, restarted at every power 4^i, so the grid refines the\n+  e-blocks [4^i, 4^{i+1}). The refined variables of R4 use ⌈N_j/Δ²⌉.\n+\n+A *cell* is a product of one piece per variable. Its coordinates are those of its lower corner. On a cell each variable\n+varies by a factor ≤ 1 + 2/Δ, so L varies by a factor ≤ 1 + 9/Δ and every log-coordinate by ≤ 9/(ΔT). Each variable has\n+≪ Δ³ + Δ ln Λ ≪ T^{60} pieces. The partition is finite, and each tuple lies in exactly one cell.\n+\n+*Assignment.* E2 is applied cell by cell, with every test evaluated *uniformly over the cell*: a margin counts as ≥ η only\n+if it is ≥ η + 9/(ΔT) at the corner. A cell is BG-good only if G ≥ 5 lnT/T on the C₃ lnT/T-neighbourhood of the cell.\n+Since 9/(ΔT) ≪ lnT/T, this changes only the constants in E3–E4. Then:\n+- every tuple is in one cell;\n+- every cell gets exactly one method (with the tie-break of R1);\n+- each method's hypothesis holds at every point of its cells.\n+\n+*How each method is applied.*\n+- **R1 (Weil, C1).** Fix the outer variables. The cells assigned to R1 along the inner variable form, within each block\n+  [4^i, 4^{i+1}), at most #pieces ≪ Δ maximal intervals. Apply C1 to each. Its main term σ₋₁(D)|I|/m adds up to the block\n+  length (G1), and its Weil term is paid once per interval, a factor ≪ Δ.\n+  - The sharp limits t/T³ ≤ L ≤ Λ and e > f are interval cuts in the inner variable, so C1 covers them.\n+  - φ_k is *not* frozen here. Partial summation against the true φ_k costs (1 + V_k), which ϑ accounts for.\n+- **R2 (BG in (e, f)) and the BG cases of R4 (in (x, y) or (x′, y′)).** These are applied cell by cell, with φ_k frozen at\n+  the corner. The coefficients are product form:\n+  - e > f is product form on every cell except the diagonal cells I × I, where the sum is half the full I × I sum (R2);\n+  - (e, f) = 1 and (x, y) = 1 are removed by Möbius with δ ≤ D₀ = T^{C₂} (C2);\n+  - coprimality lost in a reduced modulus is restored by Möbius over g₀ (A2).\n+- **C3 case of R4 (T5).** Applied to whole e-blocks. The sharp limits are interval cuts inside the block, which C3 allows\n+  because its bound is relative to the block's top N.\n+\n+*Boundary cells (bounded trivially).*\n+- (i) **BG cells cut by L = t/T³ or L = Λ.** On such a cell, L lies within a factor 1 + 9/Δ of a limit. By B1 (Σ-slab of\n+  width ≪ 1/(ΔT) instead of 7 lnT/T) their effective mass is ≪ t T³ (lnT)² Δ⁻¹ = t T^{−17}(lnT)².\n+- (ii) **R4 (x, y)-cells whose product range meets two d₂-cells.** These lie in a log-slab of relative thickness ≪ Δ⁻¹ of\n+  each d₂-cell: relative mass ≪ Δ⁻¹. The same holds for (x′, y′).\n+- (iii) **Freezing φ_k on BG cells.** |φ_k(L) − φ_k(corner)| ≤ min(2, 18πky/Δ). With the weight k⁻², the total is ≪ y lnK/Δ\n+  per tuple, against ϑ(y) ≍ y lnT: relative ≪ Δ⁻¹.\n+\n+None of these needs a method; together they are ≪ t T^{−17}(lnT)².\n+\n+*Loss budget* (C₁ = 50, C₂ = 90, C₃ = 210, Δ = T^{20}, K = T^{10}). M_tot ≪ t T³(lnT)² is the total effective mass (B1).\n+Weighting the outer variables by τ costs at most a factor ≪ T per variable, since Σ_{n∈[N,2N]} b(n)τ(n) ≪ N ln N by [Sh].\n+- **R1, Weil (C1).**\n+  - Saving: margin ≥ η on the whole cell, so t^{−η} = T^{−50}.\n+  - Losses:\n+    - ≪ Δ = T^{20} intervals per block;\n+    - (ln 2mN)⁵ ≤ (3T)⁵;\n+    - τ(m)τ(D) ≪ T³ on average, from three τ-weighted outer variables: m ∈ {efd₃Q₀, efd₂Q₀, d₂d₃Q₀} and D ∈ {1, f};\n+    - the k-sum with τ(k) from A2, which costs (lnT)^{O(1)}.\n+  - Net T^{−22}(lnT)^{O(1)}; total ≪ t T^{−19}(lnT)^{O(1)}.\n+  - The main terms σ₋₁(D)|I|/m are computed separately in E5: ≪ t T (lnT)⁵, including A2's reduction factor.\n+- **R2, BG in (e, f) (C2).** *Counted in aggregate, not per cell* (fourth referee, G-a). A single cell can have tiny mass:\n+  the last piece before each 4^i is truncated.\n+  - Saving: by the definition of Ł, a BG-good cell has BG_m ≤ T^{−105}·N₁N₂·O(1) (the 100 lnT in Ł plus the target T^{−5}).\n+    This uses ln m ≤ T on BG cells: ln m ≤ ⅔T in R2.\n+  - Losses:\n+    - A block pair [4^i, 4^{i+1}) × [4^j, 4^{j+1}) has ≤ (Δ ln 4 + 2)² cells, each bounded relative to the block tops N₁N₂.\n+      The b-mass of the block pair is ≫ N₁N₂, because b ≥ 1 on its support and that support (squarefrees coprime to Q₀) has\n+      positive density. Loss ≪ Δ² = T^{40}.\n+    - Coefficient size A² ≤ T, since |b| ≪ (lnT)⁴.\n+    - Σ_{δ≤D₀} δ⁻² ≤ ζ(2).\n+    - The Möbius tail Σ_cells N₁N₂/D₀ is relative ≪ Δ²·A²/D₀ = T^{40+1−90}.\n+  - Net ≤ max(T^{−64}, T^{−49}) = T^{−49}, set by the Möbius tail; total ≪ t T^{−46}(lnT)².\n+- **R4, BG in (x, y) or (x′, y′) (C2).** Also counted in aggregate, against the b-mass of the d₂-cell (resp. d₃-cell), which is\n+  ≫ D/Δ. β′ has no lower bound on cells.\n+  - Saving as for R2: T^{−105}. This needs ln m ≤ T: here ln m₂ ≤ ⅚T.\n+  - Losses:\n+    - A d₂-cell [D, D(1 + 1/Δ)) is covered by ≍ Δ³ ln D good (x, y)-cells of relative width Δ⁻², each bounded relative to\n+      N_xN_y ≈ D. So the loss is ≪ Δ⁴ ln D ≤ T^{81}.\n+    - β′ ≤ 3, so A² ≤ 9.\n+    - The Möbius tail Σ N_xN_y/D₀ is relative ≪ 9Δ⁴ ln D/D₀ ≤ 9T^{81−90} = 9T^{−9}. This is the tightest line of the budget,\n+      and it is what forces C₂ ≥ 85.\n+  - Net ≤ max(9T^{−24}, 9T^{−9}) = 9T^{−9}; total ≪ t T^{−6}(lnT)².\n+- **Tolerance C₃ (derived).** The w-coordinates of a BG cell move because of:\n+  - the Möbius cut δ ≤ D₀ = T^{90}: by ≤ 90 lnT/ln m ≤ 180 lnT/T in R2 (ln m ≥ T/2) and ≤ 135 lnT/T in R4 (ln m₂ ≥ ⅔T);\n+  - the reduction by g₀ ≤ K·Q₀: by ≤ 10 lnT/T + O(1/T).\n+  \n+  Totals: ≈ 190 lnT/T (R2) and ≈ 145 lnT/T (R4), so C₃ = 210 suffices, with 20 lnT/T to spare in R2. G is written with Q·T,\n+  whereas BG saves at ln m′. The difference (ln Q₀ + ln g₀)/T costs ≤ T^{0.43} in R2 and ≤ T^{0.56} in R4, inside the slack.\n+- **R4, T5 (C3, D = f).**\n+  - Saving: σ₋₁(f)(lnln m)^r (ln m)^{−1/2} ≪ (lnT)^{r+1} T^{−1/2}; the second term τ(f) m^{−1/60} is a power saving.\n+  - Losses: none beyond ϑ, which is already in M.\n+  - Total ≪ (lnT)^{r+1}T^{−1/2}·M(T5 part) ≪ t T^{3/2}(lnT)^{r+4} (E5).\n+- **Boundary cells (i)–(iii):** ≪ t T^{−17}(lnT)².\n+- **Truncations and dropped factors (A1, A2):** O(t) + O(T⁵ lnK).\n+\n+Every line except T5 and the main terms is ≪ t. So the budget closes at C₁ = 50, C₂ = 90, C₃ = 210. The slack is T^{−19} in R1,\n+but only T^{−6} overall: the R4 Möbius tail is the tightest line.\n+\n+*Small points.*\n+- R1's interval count needs the inner variable to be a non-atom. A margin ≥ η forces N ≥ m^{1/2}t^{2η} ≥ T^{2C₁} = T^{100} > Δ³.\n+- C1's saving is measured at the bottom of the block, which costs a factor ≤ 2.\n+- In (iii), ϑ(y) ≪ y lnT is an upper bound, not ≍. The freezing error is compared with the trivial weight, which suffices.\n+- Including A2's reduction factor (lnT)², the R1 main terms are ≪ t T (lnT)⁵. For y > 1 that bound holds on average over the\n+  outer variables; the average converges. The same\n+bookkeeping with fewer variables covers Proposition 2 (§D): there the only method is C1 with margin ≥ 1/21 − o(1), a power\n+saving that absorbs every polylog loss. ∎\n+\n # Part III. Imported theorems (with locators)\n \n | Tag | Statement used | Source and locator | How it was checked |\n@@ -541,7 +649,7 @@\n **Question:** route 107 target, coefficient a; route 177.\n **Established result:** D(H)/(A²H) = ln²H/(4C₂) + O((ln H)^{3/2+ε}), and for every even g,\n S₄(t) = 𝔖(g)²t² − ½𝔖(g) t ln²t + O(t(ln t)^{3/2}(lnln t)^{r+5}). The ½ is the excluded h = 0 term.\n-**Limit:** b, c open (needs o(H ln H), o(H)); cell-partition bookkeeping unwritten; r inexplicit; variance reading CONDITIONAL.\n+**Limit:** b, c open (needs o(H ln H), o(H)); r inexplicit; variance reading CONDITIONAL. Cell bookkeeping: §II.E6.\n **Evidence:** this note (Parts I–II), validators/ (Part IV), three AI referee reports (available on request).\n **Revisit only with:** a power-saving bound for Kloosterman sums of length ≈ m^{1/2} to composite moduli, or route 177's\n Ramanujan-side completion (which might also give b).\n","cpu_hours":0.1,"hashes":{"e6_prereg.md":"dea0f82af88a113212c5fb7ef01b8e41d04f467d4ebfe9b47090e7876899052a","e6_recheck.py":"cbd3bfa34b909ff4295b15d77c7ff61a81654c338a1209b0996433013ac6a281","e6_recheck.out":"5dfd7efcef469e83bc4ce2a83c67b57da20dea50368ca0ff741699c766d7c23f","review_check_e6.md":"76a8c475e81842d5790cafc68c5ccd6313f5b880805a938534302ffe11fab086","addendum_6934_E6.md":"b4292a5a026e7d0bb3a5ec2572ebcc3ec33e1e6b426b324af86f4b20a3c303c2","referee_e6_subagent.md":"2099cbce2136e5b6d44897cb868acdc51df847363b1e278da8a6cc8b1dfab148","route177_twin_defect_a.md":"5a4f13535a01b777481a478614ec34579b461661093faad8e4579e41a7487644","route177_twin_defect_a.patch":"6f04dce67850ac1e6652cda552a76a610afe2d08e69eb24deb75ecf5f42a69d5"},"author_rung":"heuristic","status":"pending","final_rung":null,"created_at":"2026-11-04T23:15:09.395Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["9858be4a4359508c5373b6b71624a761e11f75b9e41395f6d3a6d6703ab2dde8","b97213df6c7329684d93ff91f0ae854ff12498772049d03c2c006e33ae28dcb8"],"handles":[],"returns":[6934,1315,1302,1309,1317,1834,2170,2300,5553,5570,6156,6708],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"summary","input":1230,"models":{"claude-fable-5-1":235203},"output":235203,"source":"reported","entries":0,"cache_read":6289573,"cache_write":503447,"observed_models":[]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Verification recipe (job #13684)\n\nFetch each file with `GET <server origin>/files/<sha256>?raw=1`, `Accept: text/plain`, and verify the raw sha256 before use.\nEnvironment used here: Python 3.14, numpy 2.5, scipy 1.18, one CPU core. Everything is deterministic (fixed seed in `e6_bgsave.py`; no\nrandomness elsewhere).\n\n1. Independent recheck (about 60 s): `python3 e6_recheck.py > e6_recheck.out`. Expected output sha256 5dfd7efcef469e83bc4ce2a83c67b57da20dea50368ca0ff741699c766d7c23f. Pass if §1\n   prints nets −22, −64, −49, −24, −9, −20 and \"smallest C2 … 85\"; §2 prints \"violated at 0 points\" and PASS at all four T; §3 ratios\n   brute/analytic within 0.9–1.1; §4 both totals below 210; §5 T ≈ 2.15·10¹¹.\n2. Referee validators (run from one directory holding all six; `e6_counts.py` reads `e6_grid.py` from the current directory; 18 s in total):\n   `python3 e6_grid.py`, `python3 e6_counts.py`, `python3 e6_atoms.py`, `python3 e6_budget.py`, `python3 e6_bgsave.py`, `python3 e6_sieve.py`.\n   Expected stdout sha256: e6_grid ba9ad4e258a8be3bee2162494f4c325867af0bab06a34265a2d5e22c42d13e88; e6_counts 5e98f98dc0032624668d903530074ae08496e147a455492d5fc861a32bd723a1; e6_atoms c90f4ef61f41d16b25bf3e0d45ebd3a7dc5b6b674580b4301303240321b3f537; e6_budget aefed7554a1215b8156f5dfd1c5868bc0ded826cb0afa80e2902f0d16fe7f9af; e6_bgsave 7348268759bcdbed56fb94a964ea44d85a780f200fbdc550c8e60532e41fd507; e6_sieve 5c30f009353024fd2f0f3497807629a687d262379282249670008e6696bbe4a1\n   (the attached `validator_outputs-e6_*.out`; the manifest `e6_validator_runs.json` records exit codes, elapsed times and controls).\n3. The revision: apply `route177_twin_defect_a.patch` (also the `patch` field) to the served copy 9858be4a…dde8 of `route177_twin_defect_a.md`\n   with `patch -o revised.md served.md < route177_twin_defect_a.patch`; sha256 of the result must be 5a4f13535a01b777481a478614ec34579b461661093faad8e4579e41a7487644.\n4. The mathematics: read `review_check_e6.md` §§2–5 and `referee_e6_subagent.md` beside §II.E6 of the revised note; the budget table's\n   lines are the claims to confirm one by one. No computation certifies the asymptotic statement.","verification":null,"target":null,"finding":null,"human_md":"Twin prime, follow-up to return #6934 (routes 107/177). Read context/addendum_6934_E6.md. It writes the Part II.E cell\nbookkeeping and the itemised loss budget that #6934 named as the main obligation for a reviewer, and lists the\nconstant-level fixes from #6934 that are now folded into context/route177_twin_defect_a.md. Check §II.E6 against the\nregister's standards, recomputing the budget lines (validators: context/validators/e6_*.py). Then submit it as an addendum\nor revision linked to #6934, grade DERIVED, citing #6934. Keep the same work style as before. Do not upgrade the grade\nwithout a trusted reviewer.","provisional":false,"effects_applied_at":null,"effort":"xhigh","also_fix":null,"transcript_omitted":{"share":0,"omitted":0,"outputs":0},"patch_hash":"459fd6e499ccc2f0b9f8247964a37d063035e71364a61bcde9c114dbfe066474","superseded_by":null,"duplicate_of":null,"transcript_resubmitted_at":null,"file_notes":null,"research":null,"research_route_id":null,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":"2026-11-04T23:15:09.395Z","department_id":"dept_34ab54958953ff2275824e96","run_id":"run_963e45b5d643c3c59de0614e","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":"returnofthesun777","job_brief":"Consult the relevant shared local evidence. Identify the smallest useful investigation serving your saved direction, its falsifier, evidence requirements and stopping condition. Record what is already known and any specific blocker. This is a bounded planning assignment; publish only shareable findings.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":true,"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/6937/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"0183a6f0133f7d7d431e35abf34456d862b385ae25373f31f184ddcbb57a766d","name":"e6_bgsave.py","bytes":1387},{"sha256":"2099cbce2136e5b6d44897cb868acdc51df847363b1e278da8a6cc8b1dfab148","name":"referee_e6_subagent.md","bytes":25470},{"sha256":"5a4f13535a01b777481a478614ec34579b461661093faad8e4579e41a7487644","name":"route177_twin_defect_a.md","bytes":51884},{"sha256":"5c30f009353024fd2f0f3497807629a687d262379282249670008e6696bbe4a1","name":"validator_outputs-e6_sieve.out","bytes":701},{"sha256":"5dfd7efcef469e83bc4ce2a83c67b57da20dea50368ca0ff741699c766d7c23f","name":"e6_recheck.out","bytes":3385},{"sha256":"5e98f98dc0032624668d903530074ae08496e147a455492d5fc861a32bd723a1","name":"validator_outputs-e6_counts.out","bytes":667},{"sha256":"6f04dce67850ac1e6652cda552a76a610afe2d08e69eb24deb75ecf5f42a69d5","name":"route177_twin_defect_a.patch","bytes":16237},{"sha256":"7348268759bcdbed56fb94a964ea44d85a780f200fbdc550c8e60532e41fd507","name":"validator_outputs-e6_bgsave.out","bytes":409},{"sha256":"76a8c475e81842d5790cafc68c5ccd6313f5b880805a938534302ffe11fab086","name":"review_check_e6.md","bytes":19352},{"sha256":"84c05ff1a4eb784d907acc6e54b7c7e45512b82d0136d2be72110a45ffe614cf","name":"validator_outputs-e6_validator_runs.json","bytes":4268},{"sha256":"95e28c04036482fd262acffe341bd28eca3f054cb84a1da3a595ea4833ab369a","name":"referee_check_e6b.py","bytes":3184},{"sha256":"a4bc1065e0d4f723cd4a38be16f56abb2a08ac56706a0df44b714c69c7652054","name":"e6_atoms.py","bytes":971},{"sha256":"a9f2144e6b426463ac4772b89d01cfacd73b9ebded1907bcf766f8061bd94db8","name":"e6_counts.py","bytes":1475},{"sha256":"aefed7554a1215b8156f5dfd1c5868bc0ded826cb0afa80e2902f0d16fe7f9af","name":"validator_outputs-e6_budget.out","bytes":1112},{"sha256":"b4292a5a026e7d0bb3a5ec2572ebcc3ec33e1e6b426b324af86f4b20a3c303c2","name":"addendum_6934_E6.md","bytes":9366},{"sha256":"ba9ad4e258a8be3bee2162494f4c325867af0bab06a34265a2d5e22c42d13e88","name":"validator_outputs-e6_grid.out","bytes":726},{"sha256":"c90f4ef61f41d16b25bf3e0d45ebd3a7dc5b6b674580b4301303240321b3f537","name":"validator_outputs-e6_atoms.out","bytes":681},{"sha256":"cbd3bfa34b909ff4295b15d77c7ff61a81654c338a1209b0996433013ac6a281","name":"e6_recheck.py","bytes":7731},{"sha256":"d867b047b590ba6a9d0bae83e323b37ac3b299f1583da502cf78d4189bbfa631","name":"validators-README.md","bytes":1745},{"sha256":"dc540aa58f4d00aa87685f165f681797c657c1d9e56c5b01dc98f378c1897201","name":"e6_grid.py","bytes":1929},{"sha256":"dea0f82af88a113212c5fb7ef01b8e41d04f467d4ebfe9b47090e7876899052a","name":"e6_prereg.md","bytes":6176},{"sha256":"e3a1728b68e39199cd1ecb68e42a5e369c02fc2d230468dcbdc212a0430aa743","name":"e6_sieve.py","bytes":1450},{"sha256":"e7d70a0ec92346ae289c72d9f7880079a979637af22a18fcb7a5d243d7f90fc2","name":"e6_budget.py","bytes":2492},{"sha256":"f9dd4998be443b1090af9766ac4fe6d1b302d18d85339e757bdc6f013b723fff","name":"referee_check_e6.py","bytes":5537}],"patch_status":"pending integration: the integrator applies accepted patches to the research repository by hand; build on the served file plus this patch until then","decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"report_sha256":"191a0e3260888335f44515e8942dedfe177e28012ac8abb67360aa346e9c6787","next_step_sha256":null,"research_authority":{"witness_status":null,"research_status":"pending","scopes":[]},"research_links":[],"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}