---
conjecture: r3-b1-32
family: codex
model: "gpt-5.6-sol (codex-cli 0.144.0-alpha.4, ChatGPT-subscription auth)"
model_stamp_corrected: "2026-08-07 — archives were first written stamped gpt-5.5 by a runner bug (the stamper read config.toml's default instead of the -m flag actually passed). The calls themselves ran on gpt-5.6-sol throughout; only the label was wrong. Corrected in place, noted here rather than silently."
received: 2026-08-07
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 3
validation: VALID
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "State-level dominance is generated by repository composition: a state's portal holdings are often numerically dominated by one or a few large institutions whose acquisition scope or cataloguing specialization favors one basis value. The apparent floor therefore reflects concentration among holding institutions, not a constraint on how fragmented basis assignment itself can become.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Institutional concentration naturally produces the observed 77%–99% pluralities in most states, while a state containing several comparably large repositories with different specializations would produce the 40.62% training minimum. If the nine holdout states are likewise dominated by one or a few repositories, all would clear 35% without any intrinsic fragmentation floor.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "holding-state rather than manuscript-origin classification",
        "unequal repository size",
        "repository acquisition or cataloguing specialization",
        "state-level aggregation"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Using repository or holding-institution identifiers, calculate each state's pathway shares after giving every institution equal weight rather than every record equal weight, and model plurality share against institutional concentration. Also extend the walk to states with low institutional concentration. The rival predicts that raw dominance will closely track the largest institutions and that institution-balanced or low-concentration states can fall below 35%; a genuine assignment-fragmentation floor predicts continued compliance despite such balancing.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The plurality drops below 35% after equal-institution weighting, or low-concentration states systematically have much lower pluralities while their largest repositories are individually pathway-specialized."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "Portal ingestion or data-entry workflows may assign a batch-level default basis value when source catalogues omit the field, use incompatible vocabularies, or are imported through a fixed mapping. Large defaulted batches would create a dominant pathway even if the underlying manuscripts or curatorial decisions were much more fragmented.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A common default or source-specific mapping applied across state imports would make one basis value overwhelmingly frequent in most states and would persist in every holdout because all states use the same portal infrastructure. The 40.62% state could simply contain several large imports produced by different mappings, matching both the exceptional training fragmentation and universal holdout survival.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "data-entry default",
        "missing-value recoding",
        "source-vocabulary harmonization",
        "batch import artifact"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Stratify records by contributing catalogue, import batch, creation date, metadata completeness, and any provenance fields available in the portal. Audit samples from the dominant pathway against their source-catalogue descriptions, then recompute shares after excluding demonstrably defaulted or mechanically mapped records. The rival predicts abrupt batch boundaries, near-constant labels within imports, and substantial loss of the dominant share after correction; the proposed mechanism predicts broadly valid assignments and a plurality remaining above 35%.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Dominant-pathway records are disproportionately metadata-poor or confined to specific imports, source audits reveal systematic defaulting or mistranslation, and correcting those records removes the 35% plurality."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The record denominator may overcount repeated manifestations of the same underlying cataloguing decision, such as volumes, copies, component texts, or duplicate imports. Large record clusters sharing one inherited basis value would inflate that pathway without constraining fragmentation among independent assignments.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Clustered expansion can generate the very high pluralities in most states when one large collection or multi-record manuscript family is expanded into many rows. A state with several large clusters assigned to different pathways would show the observed 40.62% minimum, and the same record-generation practice across the portal would make all nine holdouts pass.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "unit-of-count effect",
        "duplicate or repeated records",
        "multi-volume or component-record expansion",
        "collection-level pseudo-replication"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Identify record clusters using manuscript, accession, parent-item, collection, title-author, or duplicate-content identifiers and recompute each state's pathway distribution with one vote per independent parent item or catalogue decision. Compare this cluster-weighted result with the published record-weighted result. This can use the same catalogue if suitable identifiers or metadata are exposed.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Deduplication or parent-level weighting sharply reduces the plurality, changes the leading pathway, or yields a plurality below 35% in at least one state because the original dominance was carried by a few very large record clusters."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
