{
 "tm": "1RB1RA_1LC1RE_---0LD_1LE1LD_0RA0LF_1LF0LB",
 "status": "CRYPTID_CANDIDATE",
 "stage": "observe",
 "updated": "2026-10-12",
 "confidence": "med",
 "twin": "1RB1RA_0LC0RF_1LD1LC_1RE1LB_---0RA_1RF0RD",
 "reason": "Parked 2026-10-10 with #5 (auto-applied recommendation): exact mirror twin of #5, same cryptid call. Exact mirror twin of #5 (CRYPTID_CANDIDATE 2026-10-10). The tables are identical under mirror + renaming A..F -> D,E,A,B,C,F, with a different start state. From bounce 2 on, the tapes agree mirrored, with #5's block one cell longer; checked at 102,240/102,240 bounces to 1e10. So it has the same chaotic edge and the same open erosion bound. Rules: bounce, walks, 7 local rules and the halting door, each 60/60, plus the no-00 invariant (1e9 steps, 0 violations). Stopped before proof work; decision.json asks park vs shared Rocq rule reduction.",
 "priority_call_answered": "Park #26 with #5 as one cryptid candidate, or fund the shared Rocq rule reduction (cryptid protocol) for both twins?",
 "parked": "Parked 2026-10-10 with #5 (auto-applied recommendation): exact mirror twin of #5, same cryptid call.",
 "rule_reduction": "2026-10-12: Rocq rule reduction compiles (machines/1RB1RA_0LC0RF_1LD1LC_1RE1LB_---0RA_1RF0RD/rocq/rule_reduction.v; no Admitted/Axiom): local rules + no-00 invariant proved; erosion_open stated as open Definition; ~halts <-> erosion_open proved (#5 and twin #26 via flip/perm). NOT a kill."
}