{
 "tm": "1RB0LE_1LC1RD_1LA0RB_1RC1RB_1LF0LC_---0RC",
 "status": "STUCK",
 "stage": "informal_proof",
 "updated": "2026-10-10",
 "reason": "Parked by Dennis 2026-10-10 (decision queue: park; proof.md kept as the conditional reduction). Fatal skeptic gap stands: the edge lemma is unproved, so non-halting is only conditional. (E) as first stated just restates 'the edge never breaks'. proof.md now sharpens it to (E'): a one-sided right-part system with a fixed 16-round-trip protocol at the boundary one cell left of the X0|D cut (checks IFACE, E'). No closed language L is known, and none of the regular candidates closes: SFT_k invariants are refuted for k <= 36 (verified chains in work/sft_refutations), and plain n-gram CPS does not close, whole-machine n <= 26 or edge-system n <= 24. Whether any regular invariant exists is unknown. Everything else (rules, bounces, cycle law, init at 784,041 via the Bouncer_v3 pattern) is routine and checked. Minor gaps 2-7 fixed (review log in proof.md section 9). PRIORITY CALL for Dennis: spend more budget on (E')? Routes: native reimplementation of busycoq CTL modes for a whole-machine certificate (days, unknown odds), or edge-only closed set plus a new Coq checker (1-3 weeks plus finding the set).",
 "parked": "Parked by Dennis 2026-10-10 (decision queue: park; proof.md kept as the conditional reduction).",
 "priority_call_answered": "Continue investing in the edge lemma (E') or park the machine?"
}