Case record
The best packing known for 301 squares, side 17.84666719…, Couzo 2026. Regularized by the Squares Project with Daniel's regularizer (evand/square-packing, MIT)
As published
The packing as published, Couzo 2026 [franciscouzo square-packing 2026-09-27]

n=301

≈ corrects Nagamochi 2005open

17.3597153≤s(301)≤17.84666719…

17.3517.847
171819
17.34918.349
nn+1

Proven

17.35971≤s(301)≤17.846668

  • numerical

Citation record n-301

lowerKarakuş 2026, arXiv corrects Nagamochi 2005 (confirmed T-083)

upperCouzo & Daniel, GitHub (confirmed T-098)

Open

  • optimality
  • exact value

Bounds

Best known packing

17.84666719…

17.846667192843489783121781262887
Found by
Couzo 2026
Improved by
Daniel
Construction
—
Source
[evand exact optima 2026-10-05]
Evidence
E-evand-exact-optima-2026-10-05-report
Verified upper bound

17.84666719…

17.846667192843489783121781262887

The reported value, verified here.

Evidence
E-evand-exact-optima-2026-10-05-exact-replay, E-evand-exact-optima-2026-10-05-source-replay
Reported lower bound

17.41201967…

17.412019670884
Proved by
Hosono 2026
Kind
counting
Scope
Unrestricted unit-square packing with independent rotations and disjoint interiors.
Note
Hosono's closed form (wand125, 13 October 2026, T-180): s(N) >= a(N) for every non-square N >= 49, from a measure of line segments on 34 intervals of the fractional part. At n=301, k = 17 and interval 10 give a(301) = 17.412019670884319976723545461892..., here rounded down at 12 and 30 places. The source replayed its certificate with its own checker; no replay has run here.
Source
[wand125 closed form 2026-10-14]
Evidence
E-wand125-closed-form-report
Verified lower bound

17.3597153

Corrects
Nagamochi 2005 (T-007)
Evidence
E-karakus-strip-lower, E-karakus-strip-measure-interval
Gap

0.48695189…

Verified upper minus verified lower.

Results in the register

  • T-007 V0 C1 Nagamochi · 2026-08-31 · 321 cases

    s(n)≥min(⌈n⌉,n−2⌊n⌋+1+1) for 4≤n≤324

  • T-056 V3 C3 Couzo · 2026-09-29 · 49 cases

    Smaller packings for 49 counts from n=68 to 307, each certified two independent ways

  • T-083 V3 C3 Karakuş · 2026-10-02 · 301 cases

    s(n)≥1/2+n−⌊n⌋+1/4 for every nonsquare 8≤n≤324

  • T-085 V3 C3 Karakuş; Vlasenko · 2026-10-02 · 315 cases

    Nagamochi 2005, Lemma 1 is false for every container with a>3 and b>2

  • T-098 V3 C3 Daniel after Couzo, de Winter, Ellsworth, Levy · 2026-10-05 · 48 cases

    Exact optima of 48 known-best packings: s(n) ≤ S', 3.5e-13 to 5.0e-11 below each printed side

  • T-174 V3 C3 PingYou Ltd after Friedman, Ellsworth, Daniel, Xu, Barnett, Couzo, Ostashev, Chaoweeraprasit, Gupta, Fang, Polkovskyi, Levy · 2026-10-14 · 68 cases

    Tighter certificates at 68 counts from PingYou Ltd, of others' packings and its own

  • T-180 V0 C1 Hosono · 2026-10-14 · 264 cases

    Closed-form lower bound s(N)≥a(N) for every non-square N≥49, reported

  • T-193 V3 C3 Daniel after Xu, Chaoweeraprasit, Ostashev, Couzo, PingYou Ltd, Gupta, Polkovskyi, Levy · 2026-10-16 · 16 cases

    Exact algebraic sides at sixteen counts from Daniel, of packings the record credits

Verification

upper: replayed here; lower: external proof (read here), audited here

formal lower differs from report

Rigidity

not rigid, numerically checked, numerical multiprecision

Evidence: E-translation-escape-not-rigid

Scope

Square 3 of the retained witness (witness id 4) translates 0.000004 along (0.000455, 1) with the packing still valid, so the configuration admits a non-trivial feasible motion; 83 of its 301 squares do. Every constraint is exactly affine in the slide parameter, so the arithmetic carries no linearization error, but the coordinates are the witness's own finite-precision transcription: this settles the retained configuration, not the true optimum. Rigidity and optimality are independent, and this bears only on the former.

Regularized drawing

Regularized by the Squares Project with Daniel's regularizer (evand/square-packing, MIT), unmodified. A drawing of T-098's packing at the verified upper bound: a pure regularization, which proves no new bound, so not a result.

Open questions
  • Priority: s(301) <= 17.86867840793058804, Casson's packing, larger than the reported side (Casson)
  • Priority: s(301) <= 17.846667194079600, the first of Couzo's packings for this count (Couzo)

s(301) — open

Hosono’s closed form, 14 October 2026. Hosono’s closed form (wand125, 13 October 2026, T-180) states s(N)≥a(N) for every non-square N≥49, from a measure of line segments on 34 intervals of the fractional part. At n=301, k=17 and interval 10 give a(301)=17.412019670884319976723545461892…, so the reported lower bound here is now s(301)≥17.412019670884, rounded down, above Nagamochi’s closed form, 17.37070554374. 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.

Held for the owner, 15 October 2026; lifted 16 October 2026. T-174 at 17.8466671928434898, 1.78×10−19 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 case keeps its house until T-193’s adoption, staged under think-ot5c, moves it to T-193’s side, below T-174’s, once the writer takes an algebraic side. T-193’s exact algebraic side at this count, a root of a degree-4 integer polynomial 1.78×10−19 below this case’s verified ceiling, is confirmed here and accepted by the review of 16 October 2026.

Open. The best known published packing, Couzo’s at Daniel’s exact optimum (T-098), gives s(301)≤17.8466671928434897832…, and the strongest lower bound independently verified here is 17.359715 from Karakuş’s general theorem, leaving a gap of 0.487. General bound: s(N)≥1/2+N−⌊N⌋+1/4.

The exact optimum

Daniel’s square-packing published on 5 October 2026 an exact rational certificate of this packing at its exact optimum (T-098): the same 301 squares in a square of side 17.8466671928434897832…, 4.6×10−12 below the side Couzo prints. Square for square, its pose lies within 1.5×10−4 of the binary64 pose the atlas pictures for this count. 10 squares move by more than 1×10−8, all of them squares the source lists as carrying no force; every other square moves by at most 2.1×10−10. The known-best witness this record lists is that binary64 pose, posed at its finder’s larger side; the side above is witnessed by the certificate itself. 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, each square a rational centre and a rational t=tan(θ/2).

This repository decides the certificate exactly. Converted without rounding, every pair and every wall is decided over 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 proves s(301)≤17.8466671928434897832…, the verified upper bound; it says nothing about optimality. The source reports the exact point as a KKT local minimum: multipliers that keep it in equilibrium, a reduced Hessian positive definite once its exact flat motions are set aside (its per-count report), and no first-order descent across corner-to-corner contacts, each computed numerically at that point; none of that is verified here, and it bears on this packing alone, not on s(301). 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 packing

Couzo’s square-packing reports a packing of side 17.846667192848074 for this count, dated 26 September 2026 and unchanged when this record retained the repository on 27 September 2026 (T-056). Its first packing for this count, of side 17.846667194079600, is dated 24 September 2026. The repository names no method and no tolerance, and itself states no AI assistance; its author said on issue #227 that he found the 102 and 103 packings “with the help of Claude”.

This repository certifies it exactly. The retained decimal pose rounds to an exact rational packing at centre dilation 1, of side 17.8466671928480745595…, 5.595×10−16 above the printed side, and every pair and every wall is decided over ℚ twice, by the promotion’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it (receipt). That proves s(301)≤17.846667192848075, which was the verified upper bound until Daniel’s exact optimum above replaced it; it says nothing about optimality. Interval arithmetic on the printed pose itself, with each angle’s true cosine and sine and no rational rounding, decides every pair and wall again and gives the same bound (interval route).

Casson’s square-packing, dated 23 September 2026 and made with the help of Claude as its README says, reports a packing of side 17.86867840793058804 for this count, larger than Couzo’s by 0.02201121508251404. Casson’s is the earlier of the two by the timestamps this record’s priority notes keep: Couzo’s first packing for this count, of side 17.846667194079600, is dated 24 September 2026. The record states both dates and infers nothing about whether either packing derives from the other.

The previous best known packing

Before this intake the best known packing was the Kingbird catalogue’s, of side 17.86899185179999.

Found by Ellsworth in 2025. The recorded construction method is simulated annealing.

The lower bound

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

s(N)≥12+N−⌊N⌋+14

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), which is stronger at this 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.

bound evidence run code programs
verified lower E-karakus-strip-lower a published proof no code no verification code
verified lower E-karakus-strip-measure-interval audited here independent V-check-karakus-strip-measure (first-party)
verified upper E-evand-exact-optima-2026-10-05-exact-replay replayed here independent V-sqpack-verify, V-check-rational-witness-independent (first-party); V-evand-exact-certificates (first-party, premises)
verified upper E-evand-exact-optima-2026-10-05-source-replay replayed here producer’s code V-evand-verify-cert-py, V-evand-verify-cert2-py (external); V-evand-exact-certificates (first-party, premises)