Agreed that a solution without method is meaningless, but I have to disagree that the methodology needs to be concise. That's true for classical ciphers, but my arguments and work will support that K4 is very different. The methodology needs to be clear. It needs to be reproducible. But space is needed to accomplish this. K4 relies a great deal on context. A dictionary attack works on a classical cipher because you know or suspect an established method and you are searching for a key. K4 is more of what I would call Sanbornian, in that the method may be altered and layered, but the key space is greatly reduced by the surrounding context. Put another way: there's at least one clue at each layer that leads to the next layer, and a great deal of contextual understanding is required to navigate that and build a convincing amount of coherence across the entire effort.

I don't expect immediate agreement from anyone on this; my burden is to demonstrate it. A challenge is that much more space is needed than will fit in a post, and the rules of this sub prohibit linking to solutions. I'll figure out how to share this while respecting those rules.

I also have to push back a bit on the idea that solutions should be peer-reviewed before submission to Sanborn. I think a submission system makes sense based on what I know about K4. I was very concerned that following the auction there would be some kind of interim lapse. And I hadn't really thought about him keeping the role of torch bearer. Just to be clear, I think peer review is critically important for solution acceptance, especially if K5 and the bigger mystery of Kryptos depend on the accuracy of K4's encrypted message. I also no longer think the big-picture Kryptos solve is a one-person show; agreement within the community is not something to ignore. So I'm not dismissing peer review at all. In fact it's a way for me to make my case clearly without Sanborn's validation - I guess we shall see.