King John of Hungary and an agent at Buda to the dukes of Bavaria, 1533–1534

TASK: take a partial decipherment further: King John of Hungary and an agent at Buda to the dukes of Bavaria, 1533–1534
This page: https://dbourdeau.github.io/cyphersolver/further/sperantio1534.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/sperantio1534.html (read it first: how the text was read, the key, the reading)
  Date:       1533–1534
  Outcome:    key from adjacent plaintext · partial
  Read now:   95.5% of the deciphered cipher tokens give sense (pieces below may be untouched)
  Files:      https://github.com/dbourdeau/cyphersolver/tree/main/targets/sperantio1534 (NOTES.md, key, transcription, reading, scripts)

OPEN GAPS (from NOTES.md, "## Remaining gaps")
  1. [illegible: needs a new source] R9412, 27 cipher words not read (after the 5 Oct check) - blocker: illegible; originally 31 words unread and 37 supplied: the second Danube fortress (l.10), "Caiianer" (l.44), the bishop (l.56), Schmalz's factor's name (l.51), the signature (l.65), about twenty single words at blotted signs. Three transcription passes, a 2.4x zoom pass on the names, a gap-level sign search (`r9411/gapfix.py`), two look-alike repairs (`confuse.py`) and two lexicon optimisers (`lexopt*.py`) were tried; the automated ones raise their objective while making the German worse and were rejected. A second, independent transcription (the control above) does not read these places either. Note (5 Oct): the full-resolution f.250r image is clean, so these are unresolved sign readings rather than lost ink; a fresh hand transcription of just these lines is the remaining move.
  2. [illegible: needs a new source] R9411 13 short gaps - blocker: illegible; single words at blotted signs, and the captain's name on l.19, where the gloss is also faint.
  3. [no-key-material: needs a new source] R9415 17 unread or doubtful words (listed in `r9415/count.txt`) - blocker: no-key-material; scattered, mostly one sign each; zoom pass 22 Sept and decrypt check 5 Oct 2026 done

ALREADY TRIED (from NOTES.md, "## Escalation")
  [x] siblings: R9415 (System L, first worked in kaa4591b, now in this entry) has the same key; System A′ letters R9408–R9413 used as parallel text for R9412 (they read worse, no help); R9413 key compared (16 signs agree, a different key).
  [x] clear-pages: R9411's own interlinear gloss gave the key; the only other gloss (f.251r) is the dating clause.
  [x] known-keys: System L (R9415) and System A′ (R9427 gloss key) tried; System L fits unchanged.
  [x] print: web search for KAA 4591 / Sperantio / Zápolya 1534 cipher letters, a printed Bavarian-Hungarian mining correspondence and Nicolaus Freiberger: no edition, no prior decipherment.
  [x] key-rebuild: constrained annealing from the gloss (Latin), refits on German (free, joint, seeded with ch/sch); hill-climbs from the System L seed (failed twice, seed kept).
  [x] retry: three transcription passes over R9412, gap-level sign search, look-alike repair, lexicon optimisers, an interpretive pass (84% → 89% → 95.0%), and an independent second transcription with a Viterbi word fit.
  [x] measure: (5 Oct): every bracketed supply in R9412 checked against `r9411/run_r9412_final.txt`; nine the cipher spells itself were un-bracketed (see Steps). The [..] places were not re-transcribed in this pass.
  [x] retry: (23 Oct 2026, v8): R9411/R9412 rescored as running text (0.71, 0.648); both keep read, R9412 marginal

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/sperantio1534/NOTES.md in full, and the
   key, transcription and reading files it names; lang/README.md (shared language models).
   Work in targets/sperantio1534/. 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/sperantio1534/. 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+sperantio1534&page=sperantio1534.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.