$n=179$$n=179$

$s(179)$$s(179)$ — open

Hosono’s closed form, 14 October 2026. Hosono’s closed form (wand125, 13 October 2026, T-180) states $s(N)\ge a(N)$$s(N)\ge a(N)$ for every non-square $N\ge 49$$N\ge 49$, from a measure of line segments on 34 intervals of the fractional part. At $n=179$$n=179$, $k=13$$k=13$ and interval 17 give $a(179)=13.450789442560079854620140152489\dots$$a(179)=13.450789442560079854620140152489\dots$, so the reported lower bound here is now $s(179)\ge 13.450789442560$$s(179)\ge 13.450789442560$, rounded down, above Nagamochi’s closed form, $13.40967364599$$13.40967364599$. The source replayed its certificate with its own checker; no record of it has been replayed here, so the verified lower bound is unchanged. The source states that its search, certificates, checkers and text were produced with AI assistance (Claude and Codex), under the direction of and reviewed by Hosono.

House adoption, 17 October 2026. PingYou Ltd’s refinement of Gupta’s refinement of Chaoweeraprasit’s SQUISH packing (T-174) is now this case’s house: its exact certificate proves $s(179)\le 13.88379549051089845$$s(179)\le 13.88379549051089845$, the reported and the verified upper bound, rounded outward from its exact side. The exact certificate side improves the previous verified exact side by about 1.39×10−19$1.39\times {10}^{-19}$. The earlier ceiling, displayed outward as $13.8837954905108985$$13.8837954905108985$ from Chaoweeraprasit’s packing, improved by Gupta (T-127), applied until this adoption and stays retained as history (the certificate).

Held for the owner, 15 October 2026; lifted 16 October 2026. T-174 at $13.8837954905108985$$13.8837954905108985$, 1.39×10−19$1.39\times {10}^{-19}$ below this case’s verified ceiling, is confirmed here and accepted by the review of 14 October 2026. From 15 October 2026 until the owner’s house rule of 16 October 2026 lifted the hold, PR #574’s houses were held for the owner, since their witnesses would add about 18.5 MB to a checkout and their custody inputs about 5.8 MB to every worker’s snapshot.

The second SQUISH update

Previously, Chaoweeraprasit, using SQUISH, reports this packing: $s(179)\le 13.8837954905121866$$s(179)\le 13.8837954905121866$, with exact side $7815882024694857/562949953421312$$7815882024694857/562949953421312$. Two independently implemented exact rational SAT routes accepted the complete packing and rejected both complete-roster controls. Two separately prompted AI reviews accepted the mathematical inputs and full receipt bindings. The author reports the seed as Couzo’s s(180), one square removed, then nearby search.

The revision-specific packet retains the source print $13.8837954905121865$$13.8837954905121865$ separately from the verified upward decimal ceiling. The exact side is unchanged; this certifies feasibility and an upper bound, without optimality, rigidity or human oversight claims. Earlier source geometry, certificates, credit and verification lanes remain historical evidence for their own packings.

Earlier SQUISH update

Previously, Chaoweeraprasit, using SQUISH, reports a tighter bound $s(179)\le 13.8913125657406980$$s(179)\le 13.8913125657406980$, with exact side $1955028440461153/140737488355328$$1955028440461153/140737488355328$. This update is confirmed at V3/C3 by the complete retained dual exact replay and separately prompted scoped AI reviews. It establishes a feasible upper bound; optimality and human oversight have not been established. The author reports the seed as Couzo’s s(180), squares removed. The revision-specific packet retains the source print $13.8913125657406979$$13.8913125657406979$ separately from the safe decimal ceiling. The atlas drawing below uses the update’s exact rational geometry, checked for the drawing independently of the frontier assurance. Previously, Earlier certified geometries, evidence and reviews remain retained as historical provenance, separate from this update’s confirmation.

Exact certificate, 2026-10-06. Daniel’s square-packing published on 5 October 2026 an exact rational certificate of this packing, decided here over $\mathbb{Q}$$\mathbb{Q}$ by two exact checkers that share no code with each other or with the source, and by the source’s own two run here: it previously proved $s(179)\le 13.89534106997650$$s(179)\le 13.89534106997650$, the verified upper bound (T-101). Until then the verified upper bound was the trivial grid bound $14$$14$.

Open. Previously, the earlier verified packing gives $s(179)\le 13.89534107$$s(179)\le 13.89534107$, and the strongest lower bound independently verified here is $13.393796$$13.393796$ from Karakuş’s general theorem, leaving a gap of $0.5015$$0.5015$. General bound: s(N) >= 1/2 + sqrt(N - floor(sqrt(N)) + 1/4).

The earlier catalogue side $13.89534106997649$$13.89534106997649$ had also been conjectured optimal in this record. The smaller update geometry rules out that conjecture; it is retained here as history, and no current optimum is conjectured.

The exact certificate

Daniel’s square-packing published on 5 October 2026 exact rational certificates of the packings the register then listed as best known, solved from its own witnesses, and offered those that do not lower a printed side as a replay of the existing bounds, asking for nothing to be registered from them. The certificate for this count holds the same 179 squares, each a rational centre and a rational $t=\tan (\theta /2)$$t=\tan (\theta /2)$, in a square of side $13.8953410699764907318\dots$$13.8953410699764907318\dots$, 7.3×10−16$7.3\times {10}^{-16}$ above the side the Kingbird catalogue prints, $13.89534106997649$$13.89534106997649$. Rounded to binary64, square for square, its pose is the one the atlas previously pictured for this count. Daniel’s solver moves the binary64 pose to a nearby exact KKT point of the problem of minimizing the side under non-overlap, computed at 80 digits, and rounds it outward to rationals.

This repository decides the certificate exactly. Converted without rounding, every pair and every wall is decided over $\mathbb{Q}$$\mathbb{Q}$ twice, by sqpack’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it, and the source’s own two checkers, run here as retained, accept it as well (receipts). That previously proved $s(179)\le 13.89534106997650$$s(179)\le 13.89534106997650$, the verified upper bound: the certificate’s side rounded up at the fourteen decimals the catalogue prints, as the record writes any certificate of a printed side. It says nothing about optimality. On jlevy/squares#375 its author wrote that the solver, its checkers and the batch “were written with Claude (Anthropic) as a coding and research agent, directed and reviewed by me.”

The earlier verified upper bound and the earlier catalogue print agree to one unit of the printed side’s last place, the precision at which the record compares them. The printed side itself was not certified by that rational certificate: the certificate’s side lay above it.

The packing

Found by Ellsworth in 2025. Improved by Ellsworth in January 2026, via simulated annealing. In the catalogue’s words: “Optimized by Stead in June 2026, working with Claude Fable 5.” Its side length is algebraic of degree 158 over $\mathbb{Q}$$\mathbb{Q}$.

The lower bound

The strongest lower bound independently verified in this record is Karakuş’s general bound, which applies to every nonsquare $N\ge 8$$N\ge 8$:

Correction, 2 October 2026. Until that date the verified lower bound here was Nagamochi’s general closed form, s(N)≥min(⌈N​⌉,N−2⌊N​⌋+1​+1)$s(N)\ge min(\lceil \sqrt{N}\rceil ,\sqrt{N-2\lfloor \sqrt{N}\rfloor +1}+1)$, which is stronger at this $n$$n$ and is now recorded as a reported bound. Its published proof rests on Nagamochi’s Lemma 1, which Karakuş showed false; nothing is disproved, and no packing beating it is known (review of 2 October 2026). This register had recorded that proof as verified, its own error, logged as defect D-516.

Source-reported bounds are recorded separately from this independently verified theorem.

Verification Code

The programs behind this case’s verified bounds, by their evidence. The code column says how the code that ran stands to the code its producer used. VERIFIERS.md says what each program is and whose it is.

The Gupta precision refinement

Gupta refines the earlier SQUISH construction at exact rational side $13883795490510898440309946897577/1000000000000000000000000000000$$13883795490510898440309946897577/1000000000000000000000000000000$, displayed upward as $13.8837954905108985$$13.8837954905108985$ (T-127). The complete factual packet retains every original certificate, complete comparator and actual deciding outcome for all seventeen source cases, including three withdrawals.

Complete dual-route native replay, full-roster controls and separately prompted source and production review confirm finite feasibility at V3/C3 using independently re-implemented deciding code. The repository routes share parsing, half-angle conversion, Fraction arithmetic and SAT methodology; the recorded code relation is to the source producer’s verification, not to each other. The full source poses are converted without dilation or rounding. The source credits Chaoweeraprasit for SQUISH and Daniel for the optimizer. No author program is executed here. Feasibility establishes no optimizer, local-minimum, rigidity, novelty, priority, global-optimality, formal proof or human-oversight assurance.

PingYou Ltd’s certificate (T-174)

PingYou Ltd’s refinement of Gupta’s refinement of Chaoweeraprasit’s SQUISH packing, reported in pull request #574, at an exact rational side, displayed upward as $13.88379549051089845$$13.88379549051089845$ (T-174). The certificate gives a rational side and, for each of the 179 unit squares, a rational centre and the tangent of its half-angle; the retained packet holds it with the complete native jobs that decided it.

Both maintained exact routes decided it here, sqpack’s exact separating-axis verifier and the independent rational corner checker, with its duplicate-square and outside-container controls, and a third exact route, half-extent containment and exact intersection area, decided it again. The source ran both maintained routes itself on its corners witnesses; those runs are its own, and the replay here is independently re-implemented. The review of 14 October 2026 accepted the replay for finite feasibility. That proves $s(179)\le 13.88379549051089845$$s(179)\le 13.88379549051089845$, the verified upper bound: confirmed, independently re-implemented. It says nothing about optimality, rigidity or a local minimum.

The certificate is PingYou Ltd’s tightening of the packing T-127 records, that packing by the source’s statement, not decided here (T-174’s regularizations), so the packing keeps its finder’s credit and PingYou Ltd is credited with the certificate.

The source makes no statement about AI assistance in this pull request; for its #503 and #504 certificates the author said on 12 October 2026 that they were AI assisted by ‘PY’, an unreleased agentic AI offering by PingYou Ltd.

The house it replaces, $13.8837954905108985$$13.8837954905108985$ from Chaoweeraprasit’s packing, improved by Gupta (T-127), stays retained with its own replay as history. The other certificates confirmed here at this count, T-116 at $13.8837954905121866$$13.8837954905121866$, T-115 at $13.8913125657406980$$13.8913125657406980$ and T-125 at $13.8939549425138940$$13.8939549425138940$, stay verified and are not selected.