  In 2016 Lemke Oliver and Soundararajan examined the gaps between the first
hundred million primes and observed biases in their distributions modulo 10.
Given our work on the evolution of the populations of various gaps across
stages of Eratosthenes sieve, the observed biases are totally expected.
  The biases observed by Lemke Oliver and Soundararajan are a wonderful example
for contrasting the computational range with the asymptotic range for the
populations of the gaps between primes. The observed biases are the combination
of two phenomena: (a) very small gaps, say $2 \le g \le 30$, get off to quick
starts and over the first 100 million primes larger gaps are too early in their
evolution; and (b) the assignment of small gaps across the residue classes
disadvantages some of those classes - until enormous primes, far beyond the
computational range.
  For modulus 10 and a few other bases, we aggregate the gaps by residue class
and track the evolution of these teams as Eratosthenes sieve continues. The
relative populations across these teams start with biases across the residue
classes. These initial biases fade as the sieve continues. The OS enumeration
strongly agrees with a uniform sampling at the corresponding stage of the
sieve. The biases persist well beyond the computational range, but they are
ultimately transient.
