$n=71$$n=71$

$s(71)$$s(71)$ — open

Exact regularized certificate, 2026-10-12. This project’s regularization pass, Daniel’s exact solver and regularizer run here on this register’s witness, produced an exact rational packing of this arrangement, decided here over $\mathbb{Q}$$\mathbb{Q}$ by two exact checkers: it proves $s(71)\le 8.944071557570315506565203868717210451$$s(71)\le 8.944071557570315506565203868717210451$, the verified upper bound (T-155) rounded up at 36 places, which the record still prints as $8.94407155757032$$8.94407155757032$. Until then the verified upper bound was exactly $8.94407155757032$$8.94407155757032$, the side of Daniel’s exact certificate of this packing rounded up at the printed precision (T-101).

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}$$\mathbb{Q}$ by two exact checkers that share no code with each other or with the source, and by the source’s own two run here: it proves $s(71)\le 8.94407155757032$$s(71)\le 8.94407155757032$, the verified upper bound from 6 to 12 October 2026 (T-101). Until then the verified upper bound was the trivial grid bound $9$$9$.

External intake, 2026-10-05. Hosono’s mixed-certificate source reports $s(71)\ge 8721/1000=8.721$$s(71)\ge 8721/1000=8.721$ (T-091), from a density of 529 rectangles of total mass $7099999/100000<71$$7099999/100000<71$, accepted there at every net angle by its research copy of Tokoharu’s checker at threshold one. It is above the $1741/200$$1741/200$ this case reported, by $0.016$$0.016$. It supersedes the source’s mixed_n71_L8705. sqverify-fast, this repository’s clean-room verifier, decided it here on 5 October 2026 at all 201 net directions, so it is also the verified lower bound: confirmed, independently re-implemented. Hosono’s README says parts of the work were produced with AI assistance under human direction.

External intake, 2026-10-03. Hosono’s mixed-certificate source reports the mixed certificate mixed_n71_L8705 at side $1741/200=8.705$$1741/200=8.705$ (T-082), since superseded (T-091), from a density of 471 rectangles of total mass $7099999/100000<71$$7099999/100000<71$, accepted there at every net angle by its research copy of Tokoharu’s checker at threshold one. It is above the $1737/200$$1737/200$ this case reported, by $0.02$$0.02$. sqverify-fast, this repository’s clean-room verifier, decided it here on 6 October 2026 at all 201 net directions: confirmed, independently re-implemented. The verified lower bound is unchanged, the certificate above being higher. Hosono’s README says parts of the work were produced with AI assistance under human direction.

External intake, 2026-10-01. Hosono’s rectangle-density source reports $s(71)\ge 1737/200=8.685$$s(71)\ge 1737/200=8.685$, since superseded (T-091), with total mass $7099/100=70.99<71$$7099/100=70.99<71$, accepted by Tokoharu’s unchanged interval checker. The complete 201-direction coverage replay here accepted it again, after this repository’s exact audit checked that the regenerated checker input is the published one and checked the mass and net premises, so it is also verified. Hosono’s README says parts of the work were produced with AI assistance under human direction.

External intake, 2026-09-28. Hosono’s rectangle-density source reports $s(71)\ge 1737/200=8.685$$s(71)\ge 1737/200=8.685$, since superseded (T-091), with total mass $7099/100=70.99<71$$7099/100=70.99<71$, accepted by Tokoharu’s unchanged interval checker. This repository’s exact audit checks that the regenerated checker input is the published one, and checks the mass and net premises; the complete coverage replay has not yet run here, so the verified lower bound is unchanged. Hosono’s README says parts of the work were produced with AI assistance under human direction.

External intake, 2026-09-27. Hosono’s rectangle-density source reports a direct $1729/200=8.645$$1729/200=8.645$ certificate for this case, whose reported bound the 2026-09-28 intake above raises, with total mass $7099/100=70.99<71$$7099/100=70.99<71$, accepted by Tokoharu’s unchanged interval checker. This repository’s exact audit checks that the regenerated checker input is the published one, and checks the mass and net premises; the complete coverage replay has not yet run here, so the verified lower bound is unchanged.

External intake, 2026-09-22. Hosono’s retained source reports $s(70)\ge 171/20=8.55$$s(70)\ge 171/20=8.55$; monotonicity carries the reported bound to $n=71$$n=71$. The complete exact replay verifies the n70 premise, so the same monotonicity argument verifies the bound at $n=71$$n=71$.

Open. The best known packing gives $s(71)\le 8.94407156$$s(71)\le 8.94407156$, and the verified lower bound is $s(71)\ge 8721/1000=8.721$$s(71)\ge 8721/1000=8.721$, from Hosono’s mixed rectangle-density certificate of 4 October, leaving a gap of about $0.2231$$0.2231$.

The regularized exact certificate

This project’s regularization pass of 11 and 12 October 2026 ran Daniel’s exact solver and regularizer (evand/square-packing, MIT, vendored here) on this register’s witness for this count, with the conservative angle policy and coincide placement, and this project’s same-side re-solve then fixed the result’s tight contacts over $\mathbb{Q}$$\mathbb{Q}$ at the witness’s own side. The result is an exact rational packing of the same 71 squares in a square of side $8.944071557570315506565203868717210451$$8.944071557570315506565203868717210451$ (rounded up at 36 places), 4.5×10−15$4.5\times {10}^{-15}$ below the verified upper bound the record held before, and 8.9×10−20$8.9\times {10}^{-20}$ below the side of Daniel’s certificate of this packing (T-101): it is the witness’s own side. Measured against the witness under the box’s eight symmetries, its squares pair one to one with the witness’s; 3 move by more than 1×10−3$1\times {10}^{-3}$, the largest by 2.8×10−2$2.8\times {10}^{-2}$, and none turns by more than 1×10−6$1\times {10}^{-6}$ as a sine. It redraws the packing visibly, and is drawn only once the regularized layer admits it under the regularization policy.

Each pair and each wall is decided over $\mathbb{Q}$$\mathbb{Q}$ twice, by sqpack’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it, and both accept it; both refuse it with its tightest pair pushed into overlap and with its box shrunk past its least clearance (certificate). The same two checkers accepted it in the run that made it, so this is a reproduction with the producer’s code. That proves $s(71)\le 8.944071557570315506565203868717210451$$s(71)\le 8.944071557570315506565203868717210451$, the verified upper bound (T-155) rounded up at 36 places. The exact side, a rational, is the exact form of the case’s verified_upper_bound, which prints it as $8.94407155757032$$8.94407155757032$, the decimal it printed before and an upper display of it. It says nothing about optimality, and the packing stays its finders’.

The earlier exact certificate

Daniel’s square-packing published on 5 October 2026 exact rational certificates of the packings this register lists 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 71 squares, each a rational centre and a rational $t=\tan (\theta /2)$$t=\tan (\theta /2)$, in a square of side $8.9440715575703155067\dots$$8.9440715575703155067\dots$, 5.5×10−15$5.5\times {10}^{-15}$ above the side the Kingbird catalogue prints, $8.94407155757031$$8.94407155757031$. Square for square, its pose lies within 1.5×10−4$1.5\times {10}^{-4}$ of the binary64 pose the atlas pictures for this count. 2 squares move by more than 1×10−8$1\times {10}^{-8}$, all of them squares the source lists as carrying no force; every other square’s centre rounds to the witness’s. 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}$$\mathbb{Q}$ twice, by sqpack’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it, and the source’s own two checkers, run here as retained, accept it as well (receipts). That proves $s(71)\le 8.94407155757032$$s(71)\le 8.94407155757032$, the verified upper bound until 12 October 2026: 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.”

Its rounded-up side and the printed side agree to one unit of the printed side’s last place, the precision at which the record compares them. The printed side itself is not certified here: the certificate’s side lies above it.

The packing

Found by Schadt in 2025, via simulated annealing.

The lower bound

The verified field rests on a complete decision here (E-n071-wand125-mixed-8721-sqverify-fast-replay, V3/C3) of Hosono’s mixed certificate of 4 October by sqverify-fast, this repository’s clean-room measure verifier: all 201 net directions of the retained candidate on 5 October 2026, with two mutants scaled below coverage one refused. It shares no code with the source’s checker, so it decides coverage a second way with the same method; the source’s own checker was not run here. Until this decision the verified lower bound was $1737/200$$1737/200$ (E-wand125-rectangle-2026-09-28-source-replay).

The verified lower bound was $1737/200=8.685$$1737/200=8.685$ until 5 October, from Hosono’s own n71 rectangle-density certificate, replayed in full here (T-070). Until 2026-10-02 it was $171/20$$171/20$: the complete n70 exact replay verifies that bound, and deleting one square from any hypothetical packing proves it for n71 too. A second interval implementation or generalized native importer would add confirmation and reuse, but it is not a missing premise of either bound.

Corrected 2 October 2026: Nagamochi’s Lemma 1 is false (Karakuş 2026), so his closed form below is now a reported bound whose published proof is incomplete (review). This register had recorded that proof as verified, its own error, logged as defect D-516. Nagamochi’s earlier general closed form remains part of the evidence history and applies to every $N\ge 4$$N\ge 4$:

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.