Fresh source and bounded-priority ledger

Audit date: 8 September 2026. Primary mathematical evidence only. Fresh PDFs are working copies and are not redistributed in the release. Source hashes identify the inspected bytes, not official publisher checksums.

Contents

Primary source map

Source	Checked locations	Use and limitation
Chen-Kricker, arXiv:2606.13268v1	Definitions 3.1, 3.7, 5.7, 5.11, 5.17, 5.22; Lemma 5.18; (5.6); Proposition 5.25; Remark 5.26; Conjecture 5.27; Theorems 4.9 and 5.34	The exact target, complete generator lists, comparison map and named-trace dependencies. The conjecture was visually read on PDF p. 80. Source calculations are credited rather than presented as newly discovered.
Same CK source	Section 4.1, Remark 4.2, Section 4.3; p. 62; pp. 75-76; p. 79	GY convention changes and extended target; right/left textual inconsistency; generator/inverse shorthand; correct side of the normalizing unit. Theorems are read with the explicit mixed-sided Laurent presentation.
Panitch-Park, AGT 26 (2026), 2255-2314, DOI 10.2140/agt.2026.26.2255	Section 5.2, pp. 2298-2302; Proposition 5.7; Proposition 5.8; Remark 5.9; Definitions 5.10 and 5.13	Independent ambient-image and sidedness cross-check. Proposition 5.7 already uses a related parity-grading projection for a different image. No injectivity of the quantum trace or of the non-root quantum gluing module is inferred.
Panitch-Park, arXiv:2509.09100v1	Theorem 2.20, Remark 2.21 and footnote 10; Definition 2.22 and footnote 11, pp. 18-20	Exact branch coefficients and opposite-root quotient distinction. “Two-sided quotient” language here is read through the explicitly specified left and right actions, not as unrestricted ideal closure.
Garoufalidis-Yu, Adv. Math. 486 (2026), 110735, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2025.110735	Section 4.10, Theorem 4.25; Section 5.1, especially Remark 5.1 on printed p. 34	Six-root extension exists in the source framework; this is distinct from identifying opposite roots. No new trace construction is claimed.
Garoufalidis-Yu, author-hosted GY-index revision, dated 6 August 2025	Section 3.3, (29)-(31), Remark 3.1; Section 5.5, Theorem 5.7; Appendix A; Section 5.6	Opposite-root identification remains in the target for the named peripheral theorem. The theorem and the stated target were rechecked to establish the unproved six-root boundary.
Panitch-Romo, arXiv:2609.02706v1	Introduction, Conjecture 1.2; Section 7, Conjecture 7.1	Larger Dehn-filled nontrivial quotient objective remains open here. Not a proof input to CK injectivity.

Freshly downloaded PDF snapshots

All five copies below were newly fetched during this PUBLISH audit. They happen to match the preceding ATTACK snapshots. The CK whole-document extraction was supplemented with a separate extraction of pp. 75-87. CK pp. 62, 79 and 80 were rendered and visually inspected. Source rendering was read-only; page images are not republished.

3a4758a2776811bea150aae0cc64fe78994e47edc06e916f59b80a9ab3716ed8  ck-2606.13268v1.pdf
df01b8de62d4495af2f3ff7d0bba2ec0858e709951686cf4b99adf107e93d280  pp-published-2026.pdf
7323a21fc3aa4206b20fbd283b42ac829499a916fd75cab3766d779908fe57e2  pp2-2509.09100v1.pdf
0b7c6ffe350d0c625d27fdd6ee4795969e8f649918fe6611e170e52483d8af59  gy-published-2026.pdf
fe39f211f0d223bc452833f657730576802a0f5a3b0543844618c76c1e6c121d  gy-index-author-2025.pdf

The exact download URLs and checksums are also provided in source-snapshots.json. Re-fetches of author-hosted unversioned URLs may later differ; that must be reported as a changed snapshot, not silently substituted for the audited source.

Bounded current primary-literature priority check

The live CK record exposed v1 only, submitted 11 June 2026; the PP2 record exposed v1 only, submitted 11 September 2025. CK’s current primary text still labels 5.27 a conjecture.

Fresh searches included these query families, first broadly and then with primary-domain filters for arxiv.org and msp.org:

"On 3d Quantum Trace Maps" injectivity
"Chen" "Kricker" "Conjecture 5.27"
"quantum gluing module" "injectivity"
"On 3d Quantum Trace Maps" "proof"
"Chen" "Kricker" "quantum trace"
"Panitch" "Park" "degree" "gluing"

The relevant primary hits were CK, PP1, PP2 and the recent Panitch-Romo paper, not a located proof of this particular conjecture. Searches also surfaced adjacent work on derived skein modules and quantum N-dimer models; these were not used to claim either novelty or a conjecture resolution. Secondary summaries, AI-generated descriptions, MathDB, ResearchGate and citation counts were not mathematical or priority evidence.

The primary author research lists of Samuel Panitch and Sunghyuk Park were freshly checked. Panitch’s list identified its September 2026 update and included the current Panitch-Romo paper. Neither inspected list supplied a resolution of CK 5.27. This does not exhaust those authors’ private or forthcoming work.

Priority conclusion: no prior primary-source resolution was located within this bounded check. External novelty is not certified. There is no first-priority claim and no source-author endorsement. If a prior resolution or author correction becomes available, update the attribution and theorem scope accordingly rather than treating this ledger as conclusive.

Contribution ownership

GY and PP own the trace constructions. CK owns the comparison, its surjectivity, the common-convention trace theorem, and most of the local multiplication. The graded-projection method is standard; PP1 Proposition 5.7 provides a nearby application. The Lab’s mathematical contribution is the exact equal-right-ideal formulation and the paired-half-edge degree-zero intersection proof for the actual six-root shape image. The independently implemented PBW checker is an audit artifact, not a proof of the source trace theorems or external novelty.

Publication calibration

The applicable user criterion is a recognized open problem or a mathematically substantial advance toward a major one. The directly located numbered CK conjecture supplies the recognized-problem basis. The result is a complete resolution of that precise comparison question under the disclosed source-reading convention, not merely a refinement of an internal note. Its appropriate magnitude is a focused, potentially publishable niche result. It is not a major Dehn-filling breakthrough, and the conjecture’s recency is not evidence of magnitude.