Wackerbarth’s cipher letters, 1715–1717

TASK: take a partial decipherment further: Wackerbarth’s cipher letters, 1715–1717
This page: https://dbourdeau.github.io/cyphersolver/further/wackerbarth1717.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/wackerbarth1717.html (read it first: how the text was read, the key, the reading)
  Date:       1715–17
  Outcome:    key from adjacent plaintext · partial
  Read now:   83.9% of the deciphered cipher tokens give sense (pieces below may be untouched)
  Files:      https://github.com/dbourdeau/cyphersolver/tree/main/targets/wackerbarth1717 (NOTES.md, key, transcription, reading, scripts)

OPEN GAPS (from NOTES.md, "## Remaining gaps")
  1. [open-codes: doable now] Relation XXII: 82 of 716 cipher words not counted (numbers 79, 1000, 40, 73, 38, 92, 89, 93, 98, 11, 48, 118 with values deduced from the sense only; codes 4527, 289, 172, 169, 184, 1900205 with none; 29 words where the reading gives a gloss-valued number other letters, passes one over or supplies a letter, listed in `integration_recount.py`) - blocker: open-codes; these numbers are glossed nowhere in either volume's training views; key.tsv section B proposes values that fit; 1000, 40 and 11 recur with the same value in the 1715 letter; the misread or skipped numbers need a blind re-reading of the images (not done)
  2. [open-codes: doable now] letter of 20 Nov. 1715: 181 of 922 cipher words not counted (53 rest on numbers with values deduced in the letter: 96 = le 19 times, 72 = ch, 1000 = et, 85 = st, 64 = c, 70 = x, 73, 284 = comte, 40 = b; 98 where the reading gives a gloss-valued number other letters, passes one over or supplies letters, 36 of them possible abbreviations of the clerk; 12 restored; 18 unresolved: 183, 251, 270, 400, 357, 358, 365, 4008, 10009, 680, 68, 94 and five spelled words) - blocker: open-codes; 96 is glossed nowhere (in view 0386 right, L03, it may be a 46); 72 = ch rests on the non-blind alignment of the 24 April letter on its sheet; the misread, skipped and truncated words need the images re-read blind (not done; images In Copyright, not here)
  3. [illegible: needs a new source] three probable misreadings in Relation XXII (0097 G07, 0097 G15, 0098 G03) and the doubtful number 0089 M03 - blocker: illegible; a 7 with a hooked head read as 4; to be re-read blind on the images (not done; no plate made)
  4. [no-key-material: needs a new source] a ground-truth test of key c - blocker: no-key-material; test A' failed and no other glossed S1 letter of at least 300 groups is left in the volume (28 May and 24 April are used up); Rous's corpus may hold one
  5. [no-key-material: needs a new source] the original key, if one survives - blocker: no-key-material; the DECODE key records of Loc. 03233/02 (R5139 and others) were not tried on S1 and Rous's 2022 book was not opened (see Prior art); not checked
  6. [needs-physical-access: needs a new source] what A.-S. Rous's paper says about these volumes - blocker: needs-physical-access; the Tartu repository refused every route from this network on 11 and 12 Nov 2026 (DOI, item page, PDF, Wayback); only the abstract was read

ALREADY TRIED (from NOTES.md, "## Escalation")
  [x] siblings: the volume (298 views) surveyed by the contributor for cipher passages (PROTOCOLE §1 and Avenant 2 §1 list them); glossed S1 views used for the key; the second volume (Loc. 00712/05) brought in with its own glossed views 0388-0390; at verification each volume's key was run on the other volume's letter
  [x] clear-pages: the separate sheet at views 0042-0043 identified as the decipherment of the whole letter of 24 April; no clear copy of Relation XXII or of the 1715 letter in the volumes
  [x] known-keys: Flemming key K0 (Loc. 00675/10, view 0080) and its shifted variant, and Wackerbarth's 1703 key, compared: none is S1; K0 = S2. The DECODE keys of Loc. 03233/02 were not tried on S1 (recorded as a gap)
  [x] print: quick web search, no edition of the 1717 Relations found; Rous's paper read by the contributor, not openable at integration; printed state papers not searched
  [x] key-rebuild: key c rebuilt by alignment on all glossed S1 views, K1715 on the 1715 glosses; the two keys compared and the gloss-backed values of each carried to the other letter (4 = x, 76 = st, 20 = b, 306 = Vienne); extension from the sense kept apart (section B) and not counted
  [x] retry: every word recounted letter by letter on the numbers under it with both gloss-built keys (integration_recount.py lists every number without a value, every misread or skipped number and every supplied letter, with the words they fall in); misreadings noted, not corrected in the frozen transcription

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/wackerbarth1717/NOTES.md in full, and the
   key, transcription and reading files it names; lang/README.md (shared language models).
   Work in targets/wackerbarth1717/. 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/wackerbarth1717/. 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+wackerbarth1717&page=wackerbarth1717.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.