Ars Inquirendi

AI-generated conjecture · below the evidence/publication boundary

← All conjectures · Institutions, law & bureaucracy

Tablet aftershocks

Status: Anticipated · untested

Status is derived only from the shepherd-authored triage/prediction data above -- community submissions and claims are a separate overlay and can never change it (see the participation panel below).

This is a proposed connection between two domains, generated by a language model. It is not an article and not evidence: it sits below the evidence/publication boundary. A quantitative prediction and a named kill-dataset are attached (when registered) so the claim stays falsifiable rather than merely evocative.

Claim (verbatim)

Tablet aftershocks. Joins statistical seismology to archival formation processes: an administrative archive, the claim runs, forms like an earthquake sequence. A main shock — a reform, a new institution, a royal accession — sets off a burst of documentation, and what follows obeys the bureaucratic analogue of Omori's law of aftershocks: activity relaxes as a power law of time since the peak, each round of paperwork begetting a slowly thinning tail of follow-ups, amendments, and disputes. That shape is specific and testable — heavy-tailed and bursty — and distinct from both a symmetric rise-and-fall and the fast fade of an exponential relaxation. The conjecture predicts that at sites rich in year-datable tablets, annual counts after the peak year decay as a power law with exponent near one, fitting better than an exponential at most sites, and that the same decay shape holds within single excavation-defined collections, so it is archival physics rather than an artifact of purchase lots.

Prediction clause (verbatim)

For CDLI proveniences with >=500 year-datable tablets, annual tablet counts after each site's peak year decay as t^-p with p between 0.7 and 1.3 for at least two-thirds of qualifying sites, fitting a power law significantly better than an exponential (likelihood-ratio test, p<0.05); the annual series are strongly bursty (Fano factor > 5). Pre-registered robustness: the same decay shape must hold inside single excavation-defined collections, so it is not a lot-purchase artifact.

Kill-dataset (verbatim)

Kill: CDLI dated tablets per provenience per year (non-random local batch; within-collection check required). Exponential decay winning at most sites, or p outside 0.4-2.0, kills it.

Nobody has run this test. The kill-data is named above. If you can run it — or you know the paper that already settles it — claim the kill or submit the prior scholarship. Kills and prior scholarship are credited here, by name, as they come in.

On Inferpedia

This conjecture has been linked to the following subject pages on Inferpedia — an encyclopedia of the missing, now in limited preview.

Provenance

Run: Fresh agent generation · model: claude-fable-5

Generated by a fresh Fable-tier instance at maximum effort with generation-first blindness (no repo reads, no searches, no DB queries); title list supplied at launch, titles only, no verdicts or dossiers seen; prompt pre-committed in docs/GOAL_CONJECTURES_BATCH2_20260705.md (7e55eb8). Novelty unverified by construction.

Novelty / leakage triage

anticipated in the literature — this exact test has never been run

Omori-law transplants to non-seismic bursty series are established (book sales, blog response, bankruptcy cascades), and quantitative modeling of a cuneiform archive's temporal shape exists (Nuzi: logistic growth to saturation at destruction) — the same object's time series, different phase. The post-peak Omori decay fit on archival deposition was not located.

Predictions

No prediction registered yet.

Weigh in

No community feedback yet.

New here? Create an account first

Create an account or sign in and your feedback is tied to you — you can track it, get replies, and claim this conjecture so others know you’re working on it. Prefer not to? Just leave your take below as a guest — only the name you type is shown.

Add your take

Posted immediately (spam is removed). Community feedback is never an adjudicated verdict and never changes this conjecture's triage label or status above.