{
 "tm": "1RB0RA_1LC0LF_1LE0LD_1LB---_1RA1LB_0LD0RC",
 "status": "STUCK",
 "stage": "size_invariant",
 "updated": "2026-10-10",
 "reason": "Waiting (auto-applied wait_shared, 2026-10-10): R2 parks until the joint R3/R2 crossing-lemma stage and #29 report on the same size lemma. Funded size_invariant stage (2026-10-10) ended STUCK; confidence stays med. No inductive size invariant was found. The reduction is now sharp: ball gaps never grow (20,596,783 trajectory ball-eats to N = 1e7 and 743,436 random, 0 violations), so safety reduces to each ball's first t-epoch. Every birth outside one special case has 2^h1 <= V*/2 (by hand; 7,454,109 trajectory and 188,785 random births). So non-halting follows from one inequality, R1: T_k + 1 <= I_k (total value at epoch start below the epoch's INC count), plus Delta+1 < 2^m in the special case V* = 2^m with two odd eats. R1 holds at all 808,539 epochs to N = 1e7, with T/I <= 0.28 for N >= 2^13 and <= 0.13 for N >= 2^14 to 1e7. It is not provable from size summaries: near-power-of-two random states break the candidates (Ja 44, Jb 601, Jc 668 of 2000), because during a crossing V* = 2^m + delta the whole ball potential moves into T. Needed: a crossing lemma bounding sum over balls of 2^(Z_gap(2^m + delta_k)) along a passage of V* through 2^m.",
 "funded": {
  "option": "size_invariant",
  "date": "2026-10-10",
  "auto": true
 },
 "priority_call_answered": "Med confidence: spend a proof-prep stage deriving the size invariant (pending-t height < log2 N - 2) natively, or park R2 until #29's eat work gives a shared counter/shift lemma?",
 "confidence": "med",
 "parked": "Waiting (auto-applied wait_shared, 2026-10-10): R2 parks until the joint R3/R2 crossing-lemma stage and #29 report on the same size lemma."
}