Rocq log: 1RB1RF_1LC0RD_---0LD_1LE0LD_1RA0RF_0RE0LB (W4-1)

Formalization round 1 (2026-10-11, machine W4-1 agent)

Result: check_kill PASS (exit 0, 17/17 checks) on the kill file [local working file] - sha256 1d62b3e870e268e07e46593c66f9d8ac0106a44da0856e7f53785204376e9328, 1,755 lines, 2,012 sentences, 90,476 bytes. - Compile 14.7 s (native on), coqchk -norec 65.7 s, Print Assumptions nonhalt: closed (0 assumptions). - No tm_text warning (one TM literal). Only the usual compile warnings (native policy A, BigInt, nat literals). - Full log: rocq/check_kill_final.log.

Route

Route B of proof.md §8.2 (renaming, the #25/F2 recipe), as proof.md §8.3/§11 Q1 and status.json next_route recommend. The computed task text suggested the conjugacy route (route A) "because #7 needs it"; proof.md §8.3 already settles that #7's needs do not bind this file, and #7 has since been killed with its own route-A file. Route B gives one TM literal, no bridge and no check_kill warning. Route A (draft fe781969…) also passes, if ever wanted.

What the file is

Built from the skeptic-round draft rocq/draftB.v (sha256 c81ad0ae…a96a5372f, regenerated by scripts/mk_routeB.py from #30's sha-pinned .v; itself a PASS, data/check_kill_routeB.log) by asserted single-match comment edits (script: session scratchpad w41f/mk_final.py), then one more header edit (no double quotes in comments): 1. Header rewritten for W4-1 in house style: machine, sigma = (A..F) -> (E,A,B,C,D,F) no mirror, start A = sigma(B), the orbit merge at epoch 795 (not used), the delta list (TM string, sigma on 59 {{X}} tokens, init 55 steps to K(1,3,t1), finite part 691 epochs to N = 17712 with Inv 11), the parent's mechanism summary, Adapted-from line (verify/FractalBEC.v, tm10, through our proof for the parent), note that write-up section numbers in comments are the parent's, AI line, Checked line. No repo-local paths. 2. State-name comments renamed by sigma: LP0, LP11, LPC, LP5, LP6 (C> -> B>, -> D>, <E), the Phi comment (pre-record <D 01 (001)^k 000 y), the init comment (P(2,t1) at step 41, K(1,3,t1) at step 55), the finite-part banner. 3. Bottom comment block: proof.md §1's busycoq-style table block (W4-1 names, words, hub/pre-record/left record, LP/Phi/D6/Rst/epoch, start and invariant).