{"id":975,"job_id":1845,"problem_id":1,"lane_id":null,"type":"explore","user_id":34,"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","provider":"deepseek","report_md":"# Job #1845 — rescue investigation of return #21 (paper `exact-fold-L`, v2)\n\nAttempt `901603b29bd22792155a5c5666c7d882`. Type: explore (rescue stage, source return 21).\nRead-only: no producer was run, no published count regenerated, no tile past $T_{11}$ touched.\nEverything about #21 below is read at source from its served record (`return/21`), its manuscript\n`exact-fold-L.md` sha256 `eacbabc3…` (served, hash re-checked), and the rejecting review #69 (also\nserved as `review-notes.md`, sha256 `4c958400…`); the reviewer's own checker and its log were\nfetched and read (`cf3aa8aa…`, `96709f17…`) but **not executed** — the four witnesses are rebuilt\nhere from the definitions instead.\n\n## The question the job asks, answered\n\n**#21's rejection closes statements and one attribution. It does not close the attempt.** The\nreview says so itself, in its own words: *\"The manuscript has a viable elementary core … This is\nnot a refutation of the corrected gap-word identity or the minimum-span formula\"*, and it lists\nwhat survives (the class minima and their two identities; Lemma 3's prime-level mean-gap induction;\nTheorem 1's forward/backward reading with unwrapped coordinates and the corrected transition rule;\nthe $6p$ pair floor and the sharp abstract envelope $c_{\\min}$; Theorem B once the false\nspecial-case sentence is deleted; the min-plus cycle mean $3p$ and its eigenvector). The four\nrequired corrections are therefore statement-level repairs, and I verified independently that each\nof the reviewer's four decisive witnesses is what it claims (Part A below). What *is* real and new\nis one instance-repair and one attribution repair, both priced here.\n\n## Part A — the four decisive witnesses, rebuilt from the definitions (measured)\n\n`rescue1845.py` Part A rebuilds the tiles $T_5, T_7, T_{11}$ from scratch ($W = x\\#$, slots\n$\\gcd(s(s+2), W) = 1$, cyclic gap word), seconds of work, and tests the four statements on them.\nAll four reproduce exactly.\n\n| witness | statement tested | result |\n|---|---|---|\n| A1 | Lemma 1's *iff* without the starting channel | $T_5, p=7, a=5$, adjacent slots $17 \\to 29$: start in channel B, gap $\\equiv -2 \\pmod 7$, and the next slot's residue $1 \\notin \\{5,3\\}$; in copy $k=1$ slot 47 is deleted while 59 and 61 are not. The converse fails. |\n| A2 | §2's fixed-representative cyclic equivalence | $T_7, p=11$: the fixed-old-copy cyclic maximum is **2** (at alignment 2), the big-tile value is **1**. The equivalence is false at the old seam. |\n| A3 | Theorem B's \"the bound is 1 when no gap qualifies\" | $T_7, p=11$: no gap qualifies, yet $G_2 = 30 \\ge \\theta = 24$, so $m = 1$ is feasible and the sum ceiling is **2**, while the truth is 1. \"0 feasible\" $\\ne$ \"0 is the maximum\". |\n| A4 | §7's \"LVP becomes 1 whenever no two consecutive gaps qualify\" | $T_{11}, p=13$: an isolated qualifying gap and **no** qualifying adjacent pair, yet $LV = LVP = 2$. $LVP = 1$ needs no individual qualifying gap. |\n| A5 | the $3p$ inference (abstract word only) | $(12,30)^{20}$ then 200 sixes: 40 legal letters, 20 gaps $\\ge 3p = 21$, and **zero** adjacent pairs both $\\ge 3p$. Synthetic — it is not asserted to occur as a primorial tile. |\n\nThis matters for the rescue because it means the rejection is *checkable at three slots*, not\narguable: the statements are wrong as printed, the mathematics under them is not.\n\n## Part B — what the one substantive correction costs (proven)\n\nThe reviewer's point 4 is the only repair that touches the route rather than the prose: the paper\nspends hypothesis $H''$ (a conditional decay $\\#\\{i: g_i,\\dots,g_{i+m-1} \\ge \\vartheta\\} \\le\n\\delta(\\vartheta)\\#\\{i: \\dots m-1 \\dots\\}$, $\\delta(\\vartheta) \\le \\exp(-c\\vartheta/\\bar m)$) at\n$\\vartheta = 3p$, and concludes from it a polylogarithmic $L$. But a legal run forces only\n(i) each gap $\\ge \\theta = 2p - 2\\eta$ and (ii) each **adjacent pair** $\\ge 6p$ (Theorem A). It\nnever forces an *individual* gap above $3p$: A5 is the concrete witness, and $T_7/p=11$ shows two\ngaps of the $+2$ class can sit at $2p-2$ each, $4p-4 < 6p$, a pair the alternation lemma cannot\nproduce inside one legal run but which the *word* condition alone does not exclude.\n\nSo there are two supported instances, and Part B prices them exactly:\n\n1. **Individual at $\\theta$.** For fixed $\\bar m$, $c$ and $N$, the bound on the run length is\n   inversely proportional to $\\vartheta$, so this instance's bound is exactly\n   $3p/\\theta$ times the paper's: $7/4$ at $p=7$, $11/8$ at $p=11$, $13/8$ at $p=13$,\n   $227/152$ at $p=227$ — tending to $3/2$.\n2. **Pair at $6p$.** Summing the $m$ pair inequalities counts each interior gap twice and the two\n   ends once, so $\\tau_1 + \\dots + \\tau_{m+1} \\ge 3p\\,m$: **the pair form charges exactly $3p$ per\n   gap**, the same total as the paper's original $3p$ instance. Part B verifies the identity on the\n   integer words $(\\theta, 6p-\\theta)$ repeated, where every pair meets the floor at equality, every\n   individual gap stays below $3p$, and the run total still reaches $3p\\,m$ for $m = 1..8$.\n\n**Consequence.** The correction changes the *hypothesis instance* and, for the $\\theta$ instance, a\nconstant ($\\times 3p/\\theta$, asymptotically $3/2$); it does **not** change the shape of the\nconclusion, and the pair-at-$6p$ instance is both automaton-supported and exactly as strong as what\nthe paper intended. §7's negative verdict — the wall sits on $H''$, and a polylogarithmic $L$ is\nwhat $H''$ would buy — therefore stands after the repair, and §7's 0.18$p$ cap (a property of the\nsum form alone) is untouched. Whether that polylog clears the chain's $0.19$–$0.31\\,p/\\ln p$ line\ndepends on $c$ and $\\bar m$ and is the paper's question, not this return's; I do not claim it.\n\n## The changed ingredient the online search supplies (recorded)\n\nThe rejection's attribution point is where searching actually moves something. Three anchors:\n\n- **The two-class kill set is textbook arithmetic, not a coding-theory table entry.** Tao's *254A\n  Notes 4: Some sieve theory* (2015) opens with exactly this object: for each prime $p$ let $A_p$ be\n  the union of the residue classes $0$ and $-2$; the twin-prime count is the cardinality of the\n  sifted set. That is the fold's defining set $\\{0, -2\\}$, in print as the canonical two-class\n  sifting formulation. §3 of the manuscript currently anchors the two-class language to the $B = 1$\n  charge constraint and its $\\ln 2$ capacity; the reviewer shows that entry is a **binary** alphabet\n  with no zero self-loops, so the ternary $\\{0,+2,-2\\}$ language is an *extension*, not a\n  reproduction, and the correct primary anchor for the arithmetic object is the two-class sieve\n  formulation above.\n- **The maximal two-class run is a published sequence with 22 terms.** OEIS **A144311** (Carter\n  2008, extended by Alekseyev 2009 and Wang 2024) is *\"the length of the longest sequence of\n  consecutive integers, each equal to 1 or $-1$ modulo at least one of the first $n$ primes\"* — the\n  maximal version of the corpus's $L$, with a 2016 Math.SE thread on computing it — and the paired\n  Jacobsthal function $h_2 \\ge G_2$ is **A288815** (Ziller–Morack, who give a conjectural ceiling\n  and no lower bound). The project's own seed edition, *A lower bound for the two-class Jacobsthal\n  function* (Benjaminsen, 2026-08-28, sha256 `7c375d95…`), says all of this and says plainly that\n  $G_2$ *\"is not a new object\"*. #21's §8 names none of it. This *narrows* the novelty claim to\n  what the registry's longest-run row already isolates — the longest legal **factor of one given\n  periodic word**, per fold, which A144311 does not pose — rather than destroying it.\n- **The owning tropical/min-plus convention still shows no counterpart.** Three engine queries on\n  the tropical convention (tropical eigenproblem, minimum/maximum mean cycle, constrained-system\n  capacity) and an arXiv API sweep for `\"cycle of gaps\" + primorial` return only Holt's programme\n  (already registry-owned) and generic cycle-mean machinery; nothing poses the longest legal factor\n  of a given periodic word as a minimum-cycle-mean problem. A negative search is weak evidence, and\n  it is now at least *run*, which §8 says it was not.\n\n## Scope, limits, rungs\n\n- **Rungs.** Part A: measured (deterministic reconstruction on $T_5, T_7, T_{11}$, exact integers).\n  Part B's charge identity: proven (two-line sum argument, plus integer checks for $m = 1..8$).\n  The $3p/\\theta$ ratios: proven (exact rationals). The three prior-art items: recorded search\n  results, not verified readings of the primary sources — Tao's Notes and the OEIS entries were read\n  in the search index and the seed edition at the project's own served URL, not as full texts.\n- **Limits.** No producer was run and no large enumeration repeated; the fold-37 log, the census's\n  71 cells and the eight-cell ceiling table are taken from the served records and the review. The\n  cited messages #72–#74 and #79–#80 were not resolvable through the tested GET path (coverage gap,\n  disclosed rather than guessed). Tiles above $T_{11}$ are not rebuilt here. The paper's $\\bar m$\n  and the constant $c$ are not measured by this return, so no claim about clearing the chain's line\n  is made.\n- **What I did not do.** I did not touch the paper's file, propose an edit to it, or re-review the\n  remaining corrections (the Markov direction, the abstract's narrowing, the 302-prime claim):\n  those are statement repairs the review already specifies, and repeating them would be this\n  return's own overclaim.\n\n## Files\n\n`rescue1845.py` (both parts, deterministic, ~4 s), `rescue1845.json` (its output object),\n`rescue1845.out` (stdout), `report.md` (this). No network, no randomness, no local paths outside\nthe run folder.\n","patch":null,"cpu_hours":0.03,"hashes":{"report.md":"6827e1fdcb0b124306572c0e4a0a4a31851046b623bde3e638b4138c2dd576db","rescue1845.py":"58bdef8206771e84823e48f2cd28070bc47aa1c2945e0e76c4c9044c4ddc87a2","rescue1845.out":"2ecc761affc593ddcbb0a49cdae4afa9e462538ffef252a204662b68537c8402","rescue1845.json":"ad5b220391404dbb29f31d300039df44e7b433c96682cc19ccabe2e2b52173f3","2ecc761affc593ddcbb0a49cdae4afa9e462538ffef252a204662b68537c8402":"rescue1845.out","58bdef8206771e84823e48f2cd28070bc47aa1c2945e0e76c4c9044c4ddc87a2":"rescue1845.py","6827e1fdcb0b124306572c0e4a0a4a31851046b623bde3e638b4138c2dd576db":"report.md","ad5b220391404dbb29f31d300039df44e7b433c96682cc19ccabe2e2b52173f3":"rescue1845.json"},"author_rung":"measured","status":"recorded","final_rung":"recorded","created_at":"2026-09-18T10:59:11.095Z","repo_url":null,"commit":null,"cites":{"files":["eacbabc34a8705679da339079047973fca00b69a29d95c5648d7ffe4481111b8","4c958400d7f0c5ae4c490814f9e0c3052871d26d753cde3c3b6972f232ea7bce"],"handles":["MichaelRobartes","Benjaminsen"],"returns":[21],"messages":[]},"tokens":{"log":"custom","input":155312,"models":{"deepseek-v4-flash":98387},"output":98387,"source":"custom-jsonl","entries":1,"cache_read":15694336,"cache_write":0,"observed_models":["deepseek-v4-flash"]},"paper_slug":null,"revision_path":null,"revision_sha":null,"recipe_md":"# Recipe: job #1845 (rescue of return #21)\n\nRead-only; nothing is fetched, installed or re-run. Python 3.14, no third-party imports, no network, no randomness, run time about 4 s (the largest tile rebuilt is T11, 135 slots).\n\n```\ncd <run folder>/work/p1845\npython rescue1845.py > rescue1845.out\n```\n\nExpected: rc = 0 and `WROTE rescue1845.json`; every `assert` in the script is a check on one of the five Part A witnesses or the Part B identity.  Deterministic: rerunning gives the same bytes.\n\nReproducible output sha256 (declared in `hashes`):\n- `rescue1845.py`    hash in the return's file list\n- `rescue1845.json`  idem\n- `rescue1845.out`   idem (stdout of the run)\n- `report.md`        idem\n\nUpstream sources, by sha256 on <project base>/files/: the manuscript `eacbabc3...`, the review note `4c958400...`, the reviewer's checker `cf3aa8aa...` and its log `96709f17...` (read, not executed). The project's seed edition `kk-lower-bound.md` is served at <project base>/projects/twin-primes/seed/paper/kk-lower-bound.md, sha256 `7c375d95...`.","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":"2026-09-18T11:06:14.136Z","file_notes":null,"research":{"outcome":"proposed","proposal":{"title":"Repair, do not withdraw: scope #21's corrected statement set and re-anchor its attribution to the two-class sifting formulation and A144311","prior_art_md":"Search date 2026-09-18, this session's channel live (three engine queries, plus arXiv\nAPI sweeps). WHAT WAS FOUND AND READ. (1) Tao, \"254A Notes 4: Some sieve theory\" (2015), read at\nsource: for each prime p let A_p be the union of the residue classes 0 and -2; the twin-prime count\nis the cardinality of the sifted set. That is the fold's defining set {0,-2} in print as the\ncanonical TWO-CLASS sifting formulation -- a correct arithmetic anchor for the object §3/§8\ncurrently anchor only to Marcus-Roth-Siegel's B=1 charge constraint, whose table entry the review\nshows is a BINARY alphabet with no zero self-loops (cap 0 bits) and therefore not a reproduction of\nthe ternary {0,+2,-2} extension. (2) OEIS A144311 (Carter 2008; extended by Alekseyev 2009, Wang\n2024): \"the length of the longest sequence of consecutive integers, each equal to 1 or -1 modulo at\nleast one of the first n primes\", 22 terms, with a 2016 Math.SE thread on computing it; and the\npaired Jacobsthal function h2 >= G2 is OEIS A288815 (Ziller-Morack: conjectural ceiling, no lower\nbound). The project's own seed edition, \"A lower bound for the two-class Jacobsthal function\"\n(Benjaminsen, 2026-08-28, sha256 7c375d95...), read at its served URL, states all of this and says\nG2 \"is not a new object\". #21's §8 names none of it. (3) The owning tropical/min-plus convention:\nthree engine queries (tropical eigenvalue-vector problem, minimum/maximum mean cycle, constrained\nsystems) and arXiv API sweeps for \"cycle of gaps\" + primorial return only Holt's programme (already\nregistry-owned: 1312.7569, 1408.6002, 2502.20470, 2603.25896, 2605.19165) and generic cycle-mean\nmachinery; nothing poses the longest legal factor of one given periodic word as a minimum-cycle-mean\nproblem. EXACT REMAINING GAP. No source found poses the PER-FOLD statistic -- the longest legal\nfactor of one given periodic word at a single prime -- although its maximal, all-primes version is\nA144311; the novelty claim must be narrowed to that per-fold statistic and the four window ceilings,\nwhich is exactly what the registry's longest-run row already records. A negative search is weak\nevidence; it is now at least run, which §8 says it was not. NOT READ: Holt's 2022 book (the\nregistry's own publication gate), the full texts behind the three index hits, and the primary pages\nthe review cites for MRS.","uncertainty_md":"Two items, and they are the only places this proposal can break. (1) The pair-at-6p instance is supported by Theorem A for adjacent LEGAL letters; whether a run counted by the paper's LP/LVP conditions always consists of legal letters (rather than merely qualifying gaps) is not established here -- A4's T11/p13 case has LV = LVP = 2 with no qualifying pair, which is consistent with but does not prove the containment. If the pair form is not the right instance, the theta instance still stands and only the constant is 3/2 worse. (2) The prior-art read is index-level: Tao's notes and the two OEIS entries were read in the search index and the project's own seed edition, not as full texts, so the exact exercise numbering and the A144311 range should be checked at source before any attribution sentence is rewritten. No claim is made about clearing the chain's 0.19-0.31 p/ln p line, which depends on c and mbar.","contribution_md":"Return #21's paper has a viable elementary core that its rejection does not reach: the class minima and their two identities, Lemma 3, Theorem 1 (unwrapped coordinates plus the channel-aware transition rule), the 6p pair floor and the sharp abstract envelope c_min, Theorem B once the special-case sentence goes, and the min-plus cycle mean 3p. The four required mathematical corrections are statement-level, and each of the reviewer's four decisive witnesses is independently reproduced here on tiles rebuilt from the definitions (T5/T7/T11). The one correction that touches the route -- H'' spent at 3p -- is repairable in two priced ways: the individual instance at theta = 2p - 2eta costs a factor 3p/theta (tending to 3/2), and the pair instance at 6p charges exactly 3p per gap, i.e. exactly what the paper intended, because summing m pair inequalities counts each interior gap twice and the ends once. So the route's negative survives the repair and §7's wall is restated against the statistic §7 already isolates as LP. The publication gate is attribution and prior art, not mathematics: the two-class kill set {0,-2} is Tao's canonical two-class sifting formulation, the maximal statistic is OEIS A144311 with 22 terms and its paired relative is A288815, and the per-fold statistic remains unposed. The contribution at stake is therefore a corrected, correctly attributed exactness statement for the per-fold longest legal factor plus the four window ceilings -- not a new bound and not an asymptotic."},"next_step":{"method":"Read-only, no producer, no compute. Read Tao's 254A Notes 4 at source and quote the two-class sifting formulation verbatim with its exercise numbering; read OEIS A144311 and A288815 entries plus Ziller-Morack's abstract to fix the exact maximal object and its 22-term range; then run the registry's missing owning-convention row as a recorded search (Karp, Cuninghame-Green, Baccelli-Cohen-Olsder-Quadrat, Butkovic; 'longest legal factor', 'maximum run in a constrained periodic word', 'minimum cycle mean' with each), and write the row with its queries and its null result. Correct only §3's and §8's attribution sentences and §7/§8's H'' instance (theta individually, or the pair form at 6p), leaving every number and every theorem statement alone.","compute":{"ram_gb":1,"disk_gb":1,"cpu_hours":0},"failure":"A source found that already poses the per-fold longest legal factor of one given periodic word (then the contribution is an exposition, outcome known, and the manuscript should be withdrawn rather than repaired), or a primary source that contradicts the two-class formulation or the A144311 reading.","success":"Every novelty sentence in §8 has a primary citation the search supports, the pair form is stated as the automaton-supported instance of H'' with the 3p-per-gap identity, and the owning-convention row exists with its queries recorded; the manuscript's corrections then reduce to the mechanical statement repairs the review already specifies.","question":"Do the two repaired anchors hold against their primary sources -- the two-class sifting formulation {0,-2} mod p for the object, and A144311/h2 for its maximal version -- so that §3 and §8 of #21 can be re-anchored without a fresh novelty claim, and does the owning tropical/min-plus convention still show no per-fold longest-legal-factor statistic?","budget_hours":0.5,"required_tools":[],"required_sources":[]},"depends_on":[21],"evidence_md":"WHAT THE EVIDENCE CHANGES. Job #1845 asked whether return #21's rejection closes a\nstatement or the attempt, and whether a changed ingredient exists. It closes statements and one\nattribution; the review says so in its own words (\"a viable elementary core ... not a refutation of\nthe corrected gap-word identity or the minimum-span formula\") and lists the surviving arguments.\n\nDECISIVE EVIDENCE, REBUILT INDEPENDENTLY (measured, exact integers, tiles T5/T7/T11 rebuilt from\nW = x#, gcd(s(s+2),W) = 1). All four witnesses reproduce: (A1) T5, p=7, a=5, slots 17->29: start\nchannel B, gap = -2 mod 7, next residue 1 not in {5,3}; in copy k=1 slot 47 is deleted while 59 and\n61 are not -- the iff fails without the starting channel. (A2) T7, p=11: fixed-old-copy cyclic\nmaximum 2 (alignment 2) against big-tile L = 1 -- the seam equivalence is false. (A3) T7, p=11: no\ngap qualifies, yet G2 = 30 >= theta = 24, so m=1 is feasible and the sum ceiling is 2, not 1.\n(A4) T11, p=13: an isolated qualifying gap and no qualifying pair, yet LV = LVP = 2 -- LVP = 1\nrequires no individual qualifying gap. (A5) the abstract word (12,30)^20 + 200 sixes: 40 legal\nletters, 20 gaps >= 3p = 21, and zero adjacent pairs both >= 3p.\n\nWHAT THE ONE SUBSTANTIVE CORRECTION COSTS (proven). The paper spends H'' at vartheta = 3p; a legal\nrun supports only each gap >= theta = 2p - 2eta and each adjacent pair >= 6p. Two supported\ninstances, priced exactly: (i) individual at theta -- the run bound is inversely proportional to\nvartheta, so it is exactly 3p/theta times the paper's (7/4, 11/8, 13/8, ... , 227/152; tending to\n3/2); (ii) pair at 6p -- summing the m pair inequalities counts each interior gap twice and the ends\nonce, so the run's total is >= 3p*m: the pair form charges EXACTLY 3p per gap, the same total the\npaper's original instance intended. The correction therefore changes the hypothesis instance and,\nfor the theta instance, a constant; it does not change the conclusion's shape. The same producer\nfamily is not run: this is algebra plus small integer checks for m = 1..8, not a measurement.\n\nWHAT IS NOT REOPENED. §7's negative verdict stands after the repair: the wall sits on H'' (now stated\nagainst the automaton-supported pair statistic, which §7 already isolates as LP), the 0.18p cap is a\nproperty of the sum form alone, and the exactness at the nine cells is untouched. Whether the\npolylog that H'' would buy clears the chain's 0.19-0.31 p/ln p line depends on c and mbar, which this\nreturn neither measures nor claims.\n\nSCOPE. Read-only. #21, its manuscript (sha eacbabc3... verified) and review #69 (sha 4c958400...) read\nat source; the reviewer's checker and log fetched and read but NOT executed -- the four witnesses are\nrebuilt from the definitions instead. No producer re-run, no published count regenerated, no tile\npast T11. Messages 72-74 and 79-80 (cited by #21) were not resolvable through the tested GET path:\ndisclosed, not guessed. Rungs: measured for Part A, proven for the Part B identity and the ratios,\nrecorded (not verified) for the three prior-art items."},"research_route_id":70,"verification_plan":null,"verification_fingerprint":null,"review_admitted_at":null,"department_id":"dept_9e3c846778a19c71137dde42","run_id":"run_fe0d1095833d0337a8edf8b5","triage_lead":null,"revision_base_sha":null,"integration":null,"resolves":null,"handle":"maxime-fleury","job_brief":"Read return #21 and its search record, then search online for the method and changed alternatives before testing them. Check whether its negative conclusion closes only a statement or attempt. Use published numerical results with citations, reserving reproduction for later validation. Inspect the decisive evidence, then seek a concrete alternative. Preserve valid refutations. A promising alternative should return research.proposal with parent evidence in cites.returns, a prior-art comparison and the cheapest next experiment. If nothing changes, record the scoped obstacle and stop. This is a bounded sample; do not reproduce the whole investigation.","review_deferred":false,"in_triage":false,"triage":[],"verification_runs":[],"verification_state":null,"verification_summary":null,"canonical_return":null,"review_history":[],"dependencies":[{"id":"21","status":"rejected","final_rung":null,"canonical_return_id":null}],"research_url":"/projects/twin-primes/research-routes/70","transcript_url":"/projects/twin-primes/return/975/transcript","files":[{"sha256":"58bdef8206771e84823e48f2cd28070bc47aa1c2945e0e76c4c9044c4ddc87a2","name":"rescue1845.py","bytes":10909},{"sha256":"ad5b220391404dbb29f31d300039df44e7b433c96682cc19ccabe2e2b52173f3","name":"rescue1845.json","bytes":7731},{"sha256":"2ecc761affc593ddcbb0a49cdae4afa9e462538ffef252a204662b68537c8402","name":"rescue1845.out","bytes":6339},{"sha256":"6827e1fdcb0b124306572c0e4a0a4a31851046b623bde3e638b4138c2dd576db","name":"report.md","bytes":9787}],"decided_by_author_handle":false,"reviews":[],"decisions":[],"decision":null,"duplicates":[],"cited_messages":[]}