\(s (103)\)$s(103)$ — open

External intake, 2026-10-02. wand125’s linear-certificate source reports \(s(101) \ge 257/25 = 10.28\)$s(101)\ge 257/25=10.28$ (T-073), from a measure of points, segments and rectangles accepted there at every net angle by its linear verifier, a checker the 2 October review read with no blocking defect. A packing of 103 squares contains one of 101, so the bound holds here by monotonicity, above Green’s reported \(10.2467362\ldots\)$10.2467362\dots$, which this case held by monotonicity. Its complete replay here on 2 October 2026 returned the certificate’s own record at all 201 directions, so it is also the verified lower bound here.

Open. The best known published packing, Francisco Couzo’s at Evan Daniel’s exact optimum (T-098), gives \(s(103) \le 10.7035167555725420088\ldots\)$s(103)\le 10.7035167555725420088\dots$, and the verified lower bound is \(s(103) \ge 257/25 = 10.28\)$s(103)\ge 257/25=10.28$, from wand125’s n101 linear certificate by monotonicity, leaving a gap of \(0.4235\)$0.4235$.

The exact optimum

Evan Daniel’s square-packing published on 5 October 2026 an exact rational certificate of this packing at its exact optimum (T-098): the same 103 squares in a square of side \(10.7035167555725420088\ldots\)$10.7035167555725420088\dots$, \(7.5 \times 10^{-12}\)$7.5\times {10}^{-12}$ below the side Francisco Couzo prints. Square for square, its pose lies within \(1.5 \times 10^{-3}\)$1.5\times {10}^{-3}$ of the binary64 pose the atlas pictures for this count. 72 squares move by more than \(1 \times 10^{-8}\)$1\times {10}^{-8}$, 6 of them squares the source lists as carrying no force and the other 66 by at most \(2.6 \times 10^{-5}\)$2.6\times {10}^{-5}$; every other square moves by at most \(1.1 \times 10^{-11}\)$1.1\times {10}^{-11}$. 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. Evan 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 \(t = \tan(\theta/2)\)$t=\tan (\theta /2)$.

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 \(s(103) \le 10.7035167555725420088\ldots\)$s(103)\le 10.7035167555725420088\dots$, 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 \(s(103)\)$s(103)$. 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

Francisco Couzo’s square-packing reports a packing of side \(10.703516755580015\)$10.703516755580015$ 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 \(10.703583456926136\)$10.703583456926136$, is dated 23 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 \(10.7035167555800151510\ldots\)$10.7035167555800151510\dots$, \(1.510 \times 10^{-16}\)$1.510\times {10}^{-16}$ above the printed side, and every pair and every wall is decided over \(\mathbb{Q}\)$\mathbb{Q}$ twice, by the promotion’s exact separating-axis test and by an independent checker that shares no code with it (receipt). That proves \(s(103) \le 10.703516755580016\)$s(103)\le 10.703516755580016$, which was the verified upper bound until Evan 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).

Griffin Casson’s square-packing, dated 23 September 2026 and made with the help of Claude as its README says, reports a packing of side \(10.70377984436967189\)$10.70377984436967189$ for this count, larger than Couzo’s by \(0.00026308878965689\)$0.00026308878965689$. Couzo’s first packing for this count, of side \(10.703583456926136\)$10.703583456926136$, is dated 23 September 2026, before Casson’s; the history now public was committed on 24 September 2026, after it. The priority notes keep the timestamps. Issue #227, opened on 23 September 2026, already linked Couzo’s repository and named this count, so a claim of his at this count predates Casson’s commit on evidence independent of either repository’s history; the issue gives no side. 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 UnitSquare Project’s, of side \(10.703790283762427\)$10.703790283762427$, below the Kingbird catalogue’s \(10.70383477210707\)$10.70383477210707$.

The UnitSquare Project’s 29 July 2026 release improves the public Schadt-Ellsworth parent by \(0.000044488344643\)$0.000044488344643$. The release classifies the result as a construction-only upper bound and says it used outward-rounded interval arithmetic, a 300-digit zero-tolerance recomputation, and an independent published checker. The public release does not include the interval boxes, governed receipt, or replayable checker needed to inspect the formal claim. This repository recorded the value as reported. The formal lane held the exact \(11 \times 11\)$11\times 11$ grid construction until this intake.

The lower bound

The verified field rests on the complete replay here of wand125’s linear certificate for 101 squares (E-n101-wand125-linear-1028-source-replay, V3/C3): all 201 directions on 2 October 2026, each returning the certificate’s own record. Its mass, \(10099999/100000\)$10099999/100000$, is below 103, so a packing of 103 at a side below \(257/25\)$257/25$ would capture at least 103 from it.

Until 2 October 2026 the verified lower bound was Nagamochi’s general closed form, now a reported bound (see the correction below), and from then until this replay was recorded on 3 October it was Karakuş’s general bound, which applies to every nonsquare \(N \ge 8\)$N\ge 8$:

Correction, 2 October 2026. Until that date the verified lower bound here was Nagamochi’s general closed form, \(s(N) \ge \min(\lceil\sqrt{N}\rceil, \sqrt{N - 2\lfloor\sqrt{N}\rfloor + 1} + 1)\)$s(N)\ge min(\lceil \sqrt{N}\rceil ,\sqrt{N-2\lfloor \sqrt{N}\rfloor +1}+1)$, which is stronger at this \(n\)$n$ 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.

Before 2 October the reported lower-bound expression for \(s(103)\)$s(103)$ was \(18 \sqrt{5} / 101 + 2 \sqrt{2} + 709 / 101\)$18\sqrt{5}/101+2\sqrt{2}+709/101$ (approximately \(10.24673626925\)$10.24673626925$). Friedman’s DS7 survey, Theorem 9, k=10, reports this bound at n=101; reference [8] is Green’s private communication (2000). The source proof has not been recovered. The unavoidable-set argument DS7’s Figure 34 illustrates does not prove it: at \(k = 10\)$k=10$ that point pattern leaves a unit square empty (review). Inherited at n=103 by monotonicity. It was a source-reported lower bound; it did not replace the verified bound above. The exact specialization and comparison are retained by audit_ds7_lower_bounds.

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.