Dunno. This solution is only 50 KB, barely longer, than listing a dict with 4000 exceptions in reference solution :D

Seems fine, although I wonder, why older solutions are validated again

Please, do not use such approaches, this is considered cheating on Codewars.

Do not use rounding or formatting floating point numbers to string with fixed precision, this is a bad practice

Use assert_approx_equals

https://docs.codewars.com/authoring/recipes/floating-point#do-not-use-rounding-or-stringification-to-work-around-problems-with-precision

That is even worse. You should better use assert_approx_equals without rounding

https://docs.codewars.com/authoring/recipes/floating-point#do-not-use-rounding-or-stringification-to-work-around-problems-with-precision

You still round values in expected in tests, which still forces user to round as well, because relative error is less, than order of rounding

There is no need to force user to round the result, since you test with assert_approx_equals

I'm not sure it's feasible to do on Codewars. The methods, derived from Dixon method, would only be effective for large numbers (let's say, above 64 digits), for smaller numbers other methods (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanks%27s_square_forms_factorization) are faster.

Factorizing something like 2^64 would not fit into Codewars 12s test suite, whereas if I take smaller numbers, users may exploit faster methods to achieve the same task.

.

In Python version, reference solution sometimes expects false, when path exists

sqj kvn [('zxz', 'kvn'), ('hbx', 'lkd'), ('wrv', 'njw'), ('ugm', 'ugm'), ('hmo', 'wrv'), ('tik', 'zdt'), ('tik', 'lxj'), ('wie', 'yzw'), ('oef', 'utn'), ('hmo', 'sae'), ('zdt', 'lsc'), ('zdt', 'liq'), ('wie', 'xlq'), ('rhk', 'liq'), ('njw', 'trh'), ('njw', 'tit'), ('tik', 'lsc'), ('zxz', 'qkw'), ('ucg', 'zdt'), ('zdt', 'gxq'), ('rhk', 'ywp'), ('lsc', 'vks'), ('tit', 'ucg'), ('utn', 'kvn'), ('lxj', 'sqj'), ('xvl', 'qkw'), ('gxq', 'xbu'), ('ugm', 'xvt'), ('aaj', 'vks'), ('ucg', 'vks'), ('ucg', 'xvt'), ('wno', 'sae'), ('fln', 'fln'), ('liq', 'pbk'), ('ugm', 'lxj'), ('oef', 'yyz'), ('wrv', 'ywp'), ('qkw', 'xbu'), ('wno', 'ucg'), ('lsc', 'gxq'), ('rhk', 'hmo'), ('hbx', 'vks'), ('wno', 'zdt'), ('qkw', 'bzn'), ('wno', 'hex'), ('rhk', 'bzn'), ('lxj', 'bzn'), ('ywp', 'wie'), ('wrv', 'rhk'), ('zxz', 'wrv'), ('bzn', 'hbx'), ('ucg', 'wno'), ('yyz', 'njw'), ('wno', 'ufy'), ('aaj', 'qkw'), ('sqj', 'lxj'), ('ufy', 'wno'), ('trh', 'njw'), ('oef', 'pbk'), ('aaj', 'bzn'), ('zxz', 'rhk'), ('njw', 'aaj'), ('lkd', 'lsc'), ('gxq', 'zdt'), ('fln', 'aaj'), ('lkd', 'rhk'), ('hbx', 'liq'), ('xlq', 'njw'), ('ywp', 'lkd'), ('wrv', 'trh'), ('tit', 'ywp'), ('gxq', 'njw'), ('liq', 'trh'), ('zdt', 'njw'), ('ywp', 'oef'), ('liq', 'fln'), ('tit', 'wrv'), ('hmo', 'hbx'), ('ywp', 'hex'), ('liq', 'yzw')]

True should equal False

Path: sqj > lxj bzn > hbx > lkd > rhk > ywp > oef > utn > kvn

We, gentlemen, don't cheat here

Duplicate to many prime factorization katas on Codewars, such as

https://www.codewars.com/kata/534a0c100d03ad9772000539
https://www.codewars.com/kata/542f3d5fd002f86efc00081a

https://docs.codewars.com/authoring/guidelines/submission-tests#input-mutation