This records the source reading completed on 2026-09-10 by the non-blind source reader, not a new reading during native filing. Its original receipt remains in working storage. The mathematical report contains the full conditional checks and checklist. The distinct grade permits retention only as a disclosed non-blind source-only reading.

Exact inputs

The frozen native subject is the following repository-relative paths as they stood on 2026-09-10T05:48:43Z:

• wiki/research/leads/polynomial_product_prime_value_condition/_index.md.
• erdos/research/leads/polynomial_product_prime_value_condition/bhalla_conditional_note.pdf: five pages.

The source is Aron Bhalla's A conditional note on an Erdős problem on large prime factors of polynomial products. No version label or publication date appears on the displayed manuscript; the retained PDF as it stood on that date identifies the artifact actually read. The hydrated PDF matched its Git LFS pointer of that date. Both native inputs were checked at reading and rechecked afterward. The original lead as read on that date is not retained as a snapshot; the current lead has only the documentary changes mapped in the mathematical report. The PDF is unchanged.

Permitted material and actual exposure

The commission permitted the existing lead and PDF; applicable organization/repository instructions, wiki verification/evidence guidance and the PDF skill; and the working source-triage note titled NEXT_SOURCE_ACCOUNT_TRIAGE.md for the scoped source labels Lemma 2.1, Hypothesis 3.1, Theorem 3.2 and Corollary 4.1. It did not supply an exhaustive allowed-material or blind-isolation contract. It excluded problem-page edits, source fetch/duplication, mathematical evidence, Lean, numerical or other search, Git/native writes, and campaign operations.

The reviewer did not author the note, lead or proof map. Earlier read-only triage had exposed the lead, living docket and historical E976 account narrative; the PDF had been hashed but not opened or its conditional proof checked. That exposure was pre-existing context, not newly assigned reading. The continuing context also contained unrelated foundation work. The commissioning agent was notified before substantive reading. No prior Bhalla proof verdict was read. No helper contributed mathematical reasoning. These are disclosed non-blind circumstances, not a claim to fresh isolation.

The organization and repository instructions, wiki anatomy, evidence, verification and mathematical-authoring guidance, and the complete PDF skill were read. The lead was read in full. The actual mathematical-source reading is precisely the five-page coverage below. No cited external paper/book, other manuscript version, proof report or web source was opened. The problem page was not used to certify a current-status result.

Actual page coverage

All five complete source pages were rendered from the hydrated native PDF and viewed at 1600-pixel scale. Complete text extraction was used alongside the images, not in place of visual inspection. Physical and printed pagination agree.

No mathematical content was inferred from binary inspection output. No external Lang chapter or original Bateman-Horn proof/text was opened. The mathematical report rederives only the elementary interfaces it explicitly exposes and assumes the stated prime-value/asymptotic premises.

Regenerable reading aids

The reading used Poppler's pdftoppm and pdftotext. The original five PNGs are disposable reading aids, not required evidence attachments. They are not part of this native filing. Their historical hashes remain in the original working receipt; exact pixels or workspace paths are not a condition for checking the mathematics from the retained PDF.

To regenerate views from an ordinary clone with that PDF hydrated, run from the repository root, using a newly created disposable output directory. The PDF has since moved, bytes unchanged, from the lead-folder path named under Exact inputs to its library source folder:

reading_output="$(mktemp -d)"
pdftoppm -f 1 -l 5 -scale-to 1600 -png \
  library/arithmetic_functions/bhalla_2026_conditional_note_large_prime_factors_polynomial_products/bhalla_2026_conditional_note_large_prime_factors_polynomial_products.pdf \
  "$reading_output/bhalla"
pdftotext -layout \
  library/arithmetic_functions/bhalla_2026_conditional_note_large_prime_factors_polynomial_products/bhalla_2026_conditional_note_large_prime_factors_polynomial_products.pdf -

The original rendering/extraction completed in about one second. That is document-processing time, not mathematical verification runtime. No source fetch, duplication, modification or mathematical execution was part of that reading. Regeneration is an optional visual-inspection aid, not a theorem checker or a prerequisite private artifact.

Scope and remaining obligations

The reading found no substantive defect in Lemma 2.1 or Theorem 3.2. It supplied the explicit lower endpoint $m\ge1$, implicit in the source proof, and qualified Corollary 4.1's printed $t\le X$ as the intended positive-integer count. Neither conjectural premise was established.

The original read-only subject remained unchanged during that assessment. This native rendition removes operational paths and uses repository-relative provenance. It does not claim a new source reading, a new mathematical verdict, accepted whole-proof coverage, a status change or a native tier. A fresh-context whole-argument review remains outstanding.