{
 "tm": "1RB0RA_1LC0LD_1LE1LD_0LB0RE_1RF1LB_---0RA",
 "status": "CRYPTID_CANDIDATE",
 "stage": "prove_l9 (L9 open; flagged cryptid with #10)",
 "confidence": "med",
 "updated": "2026-10-12",
 "cryptid_flag": true,
 "twin": "1RB0RF_1RC1RF_1LD1RA_---0LE_1LA0LE_0RA0LC",
 "reason": "Parked 2026-10-12 (Dennis: apply recommendations (2026-10-12)): Park with #10 as one cryptid candidate. Funded stage prove_l9 (Dennis 2026-10-11, 'go with recommendations') ended at its stop rule: L9 did not close, and it cannot close by a local invariant. Proved: after the flush the normalized debris weight s = sigma/2^D never grows (W1); sigma after the flush = g(PC) + h (W2); s < 1 passes from S1 to S1 in every case except the hard case H (exact carry PC = 2^D + sparse Y with N < 2^(D+1)) (W3-W5); so L9 reduces to Lemma H. Checks: 100,000 random states, 0 violations. Found: #28 is #10 (CRYPTID_CANDIDATE) mirrored with A..F -> E,A,B,F,C,D, started in #10's E (12/12 entries, 3e6 steps lock-step), and the orbits merge at our epoch 350,328 = #10's t = 350,272. #10's counter-family sigma0(B), translated, satisfies INV (L9 included) and then breaks L9 and the flush (an eat sees an s block) for every B = 8..18; on #28's own TM at B = 8: 779/779 rounds match, unsafe eat at N = 194, then recovery. Safety therefore rests on exact coincidences along one orbit (ground rule 6), as for #10. proof.md is the conditional write-up with L9 open. decision.json: park with #10 (recommended) vs shared Rocq rule reduction vs research.",
 "funded": {
  "option": "prove_l9",
  "date": "2026-10-11"
 },
 "next": "Cryptid protocol: AntiHydra-style Rocq rule reduction of the rule layer, shared with #10 and its twin, at low priority (decision.json).",
 "priority_call_answered": "Park #28 with #10 as one cryptid candidate, fund the shared Rocq rule reduction, or fund research on the shared Lemma X?",
 "parked": "Parked 2026-10-12 (Dennis: apply recommendations (2026-10-12)): Park with #10 as one cryptid candidate."
}