The inspectors’ code of the Paris siege: Steenackers to Paris, 2 November 1870

TASK: take a partial decipherment further: The inspectors’ code of the Paris siege: Steenackers to Paris, 2 November 1870
This page: https://dbourdeau.github.io/cyphersolver/further/pigeongrammes1870.html

You are helping a public research project finish reading historical cipher letters. This one is read in part:
the key works, but some pieces are still open. Your job is to close one or more of the open gaps below.

THE READING
  Write-up:   https://dbourdeau.github.io/cyphersolver/pigeongrammes1870.html (read it first: how the text was read, the key, the reading)
  Date:       1870
  Outcome:    key from adjacent plaintext · partial
  Read now:   64.3% of the deciphered cipher tokens give sense (pieces below may be untouched)
  Files:      https://github.com/dbourdeau/cyphersolver/tree/main/targets/pigeongrammes1870 (NOTES.md, key, transcription, reading, scripts)

OPEN GAPS (from NOTES.md, "## Remaining gaps")
  1. [no-key-material: needs a new source] names and places (third addressee LE-V..-E, first addressee P..-ET, 9802 6124 at Nantes, the aide-de-camp 1114 5911 0131, 0402 4712, 1002 5825 9924 T, 7708 5825 9511 D, 3920 8914 3005 5824, 0312 9516 / 2722 7802, place 9620 3328 3824, prefecture 0903 2719) - blocker: no-key-material; spelled once or twice, no second text in this code, no source naming them found
  2. [open-codes: doable now] about 35 single groups with several candidates (list in the third-pass note above) - blocker: open-codes; each occurs once or twice and the interval between known neighbours still holds several words
  3. [needs-physical-access: needs a new source] thirteen assumed digit slips (16 occurrences) and the doubtful 0617 - blocker: needs-physical-access; the full scan is with the collector and on the owner's machine, not in the repository
  4. [no-key-material: needs a new source] exact meaning of the marker groups on pages 01-03 and 05 - blocker: no-key-material; working functions only

ALREADY TRIED (from NOTES.md, "## Escalation")
  [x] siblings: the collection's other pages were sorted on 8 Nov (R1, R2, Favre/delegation code); none is in the inspectors' code
  [x] clear-pages: the clear words inside the telegram are the adjacent plaintext used; no separate clear copy exists in the collection
  [x] known-keys: R1 tested on 7 Nov (18% of groups in its table, 10% by chance, no sense): not the inspectors' table
  [x] print: Steenackers 1883 (HathiTrust), Dagron, the 1872 Bulletin article searched on 7 Nov; the telegram is not printed there; web searches of 13 Nov for Pierret and for Trochu's aides-de-camp found nothing
  [x] key-rebuild: alphabetical bracketing of the paged book (interval_cands.py), three passes on 13 Nov, 23 to 236 values
  [x] retry: every unread group listed again with the tightened intervals in the third pass; candidates recorded, none adopted without a second support

STEPS
0. Set up. If you can run a shell, fork and clone the repository and work inside it:
     git clone https://github.com/dbourdeau/cyphersolver.git
   Then read, in this order: CONTRIBUTING.md (how a contribution is sent and credited); README.md, sections
   "Repository layout" and "Conventions" (how readings are measured and named); targets/pigeongrammes1870/NOTES.md in full, and the
   key, transcription and reading files it names; lang/README.md (shared language models).
   Work in targets/pigeongrammes1870/. Add your findings to NOTES.md under a dated heading without rewriting what is there, and
   update the "## Remaining gaps" line of every gap you close. Keep WORKLOG.md there: one dated line per step
   (hypothesis, value tried, solver run, crib, control), failures included. Do not edit docs/ (the site is generated).
   If you cannot run a shell, fetch the files from the links above and keep your work in files you send with the issue.
1. Pick a gap. Start with the ones marked "doable now" (open-codes, not-attempted, left-open): the images and the key
   are online, so they need only work. A gap marked "needs a new source" (no-key-material, too-short, illegible,
   needs-physical-access) can be closed only by something new: a key
   or a deciphered sibling found elsewhere, a better image, a printed edition or calendar, a photograph from the archive.
   For those, search for that material first, and say where you looked even when you find nothing.
2. Start from the existing key and transcription in the folder. Do not rebuild the key from scratch, and do not
   re-read parts that are already read unless you find an error in them.
3. For a code group or sign value: list every place the group occurs, show how each reads with the value you propose,
   and say what still does not fit. For a passage: re-read it at the image and give the folio and line. For a missing
   letter or leaf: say where it is held and how it can be reached.
4. Measure again. Apply the key to the whole text, write the reading file, and count the share of cipher tokens that
   give sense (not an estimate). The reading is "complete" only when (1) at least 95% of its cipher tokens give sense;
   (2) no gap is left untried; (3) every letter in it is covered; (4) what stays open is scattered code groups or names,
   or pieces blocked from outside. Otherwise it stays "partial": say which gaps are still open and why.
5. Be honest. Mark every uncertain word with [?], leave unread groups as their numbers or signs, and never fill a gap
   with a plausible guess. A gap retried and still open, with what was ruled out, is worth reporting.

REPORT BACK
With a clone: open a pull request with your changes to targets/pigeongrammes1870/. Say in the description which gaps you worked on,
  the share read before and after, and how you want to be credited (name, initials or handle, and a link).
Without one: open an issue: https://github.com/dbourdeau/cyphersolver/issues/new?template=further-reading.yml&title=Further+reading%3A+pigeongrammes1870&page=pigeongrammes1870.html
  Give the write-up, the gap you worked on (its line in Remaining gaps, or the code group, folio and line), what you
  propose, the evidence (every occurrence, the images or sources), the share read before and after, your step log,
  and the tools and AI model you used.
If you cannot open issues or pull requests, write this report for your human to send. Credit goes to the person who sends it.