# QUINCUNX — EDR EAGLE-Conventions Audit (Gate 4, blind)

**Status: audit output for orchestrator review. Nothing in this document is self-marked
VERIFIED or FROZEN, and no d_dep value here is final until countersigned.** Scope executed:
gate 4 of `docs/DECISION_EDR_SPEND_20260809.md` only — "populate the already-frozen rubric
while blinded to rival results, then freeze the resulting per-test d_dep values or
conservative ranges" (`docs/DECISION_EDR_SPEND_20260809.md`). No rival test was executed, no
verdict was computed, and no query was run against `edr_staging` or any `scriptome_*` table
at any point in this pass. No git command was run and no commit was made.

Executing instrument: `docs/generated/quincunx_edr_test_bundle_v1.md` §5 (frozen,
countersigned 2026-08-09), against the eligible manifest frozen and countersigned in
`docs/generated/quincunx_edr_staging_report_20260809.md`. Per that countersignature's own
amendment, the quantity scored throughout is **d_dep** (a multiplicative discount in
`[0.4, 1.0]`), not the programme's separately-registered `k_eff`.

---

## 0. Method note

### 0.1 What this pass consulted

- The three binding documents in full: the frozen test bundle, the countersigned staging
  report, and the decision doc.
- `docs/generated/tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` — already-written prior-gate
  documentation (a file read, not a live query), which is itself the source the bundle's own
  §1.1 draws its "documentation-page corpus facts already on record" from. Read for its own
  disclosed public-documentation fetch log (§D/access-disclosure), not for anything
  outcome-facing about EDR's content.
- `apps/scriptome/services/edb_census.py` and `apps/scriptome/services/edh_census.py` in
  full — code-level structural/administrative constants (attribution strings, licence text,
  confirmed field-mapping and controlled-vocabulary patterns, confirmed date-attribute
  conventions). These are static source files documenting already-completed, already-audited
  ingest decisions, not live queries against corpus content.
- One grep against `docs/generated/quincunx_rival_dischargeability_20260809.md` for the
  `responsible_individual`/Feraudi contributor-concentration figure — a fact already
  transcribed verbatim into the frozen bundle's own §5 dimension-B evidence-source line
  ("e.g. Feraudi = 29.37% of the EDH holdout"), confirmed rather than newly discovered.
- Fresh public documentation, fetched/searched this session (2026-08-09), all EDR's/EDH's/
  EDB's/EAGLE's/Trismegistos's own public materials:
  - `http://www.edr-edr.it/en/strutt_en.php` (EDR's own "Structure and Organization" page),
    fetched via plain HTTP with a `curl` GET — the same working-access method already
    documented in `tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` §D (this site serves no HTTPS at
    all; `WebFetch`'s automatic HTTPS upgrade fails against it, exactly as that document
    found). A page of institutional/personnel affiliations, not inscription data.
  - `https://www.eagle-network.eu/resources/vocabularies/` (EAGLE Portal's own controlled-
    vocabulary listing), fetched directly.
  - WebSearch queries for: EAGLE vocabularies and their scope; Trismegistos's own
    documentation of its cross-referencing relationship with EDH/EDB/EDR; EpiDoc/EAGLE
    shared conversion tooling and common-data-model documentation. Sources returned included
    the EAGLE Portal, Heidelberg's own SAGE department page, a Balisage/CIDOC technical
    paper on EAGLE's infrastructure, the `EAGLE-BPN/epidocupconversion` XSLT repository, and
    Trismegistos's own site.
- Every citation below names its specific source (a fetched page, a staging-report line, a
  bundle-recorded fact, or a code constant) so the countersignatory can check it directly.

### 0.2 What this pass refused to consult — the blind rule

No query was run against `edr_staging` or any `scriptome_*` table. No search was directed at
EDR's own record content, search interface, or `res_complex_comune.php`. Beyond that
structural constraint, three further, deliberate abstentions:

1. **No attempt was made to estimate or infer region-specific TM-overlap concentration**
   (e.g., whether Roma carries a higher or lower share of the confirmed EDH-origin material
   than the provincial regiones). The only overlap numbers used anywhere below are the
   already-published, corpus-wide ones (EDR's own disclosed 9.85%/11,851 figure, §1.1; the
   staging report's own corpus-wide TM-exclusion count of 10,368 and residual upper bound of
   1,483, §5–§6). This is a deliberate reading of §7's prohibited list ("any
   BY-REGION-BY-OUTCOME cross-tabulation of any kind") as extending to inference, not only to
   direct query.
2. **No search was run for EDR's own language mix, chronology distribution, or genre/
   province composition** in secondary literature (e.g., published papers analyzing EDR's
   content), even though such material may exist publicly and would not touch the database.
   Documented *editorial practice, cataloguing history, vocabulary adoption, and software/
   schema conventions* were sought; documented *outcomes* were not, regardless of source.
3. **No use was made of the dischargeability roster or the EDR consult document beyond what
   the frozen bundle already transcribes**, to avoid scope creep into adjacent rival-verdict
   detail not needed for this audit.

### 0.3 How the four dimensions were scored across tests — a structural note

Dimensions A (record genealogy) and B (editorial-source genealogy) turned out, on the
evidence available, to be **properties of the corpus pair, not of any individual test's
estimand** — nothing found below differentiates their evidence by which field a given rival
test happens to examine, so each is scored once, uniformly, with the reasoning stated in
§2 and referenced per test in §4's tables (mirroring the bundle's own "shared machinery,
referenced per entry" convention, §2.1).

Dimension D (shared software/conversion conventions) is *mostly* uniform but carries one
disclosed, evidence-driven split: tests comparing EDR against **EDH** score differently from
the test comparing EDR against **EDB** (the Rome triangulation), because this project's own
held EDH data was harvested via EDH's live JSON API, not EDH's own EpiDoc/XML dump — see
§2.3.

Dimension C (ontology harmonization) is the one dimension that genuinely varies by what a
test's estimand touches, and is scored per test-type bucket in §3.

Nowhere below was a dimension score chosen to produce a convenient d_dep. Every score is
justified from evidence first; where two adjacent scores were both defensible, the higher
(more-dependence, more-discounting) one was taken as the point estimate, per the task's
"where evidence is genuinely thin, score conservatively" instruction — and a sensitivity
range is still shown per test so the countersignatory can see exactly how much of each
result rests on a judgment call rather than a hard fact.

---

## 1. Test roster: live vs. parked

### 1.1 Parked — NOT SCORED (5 registry rivals; d_dep is not applicable to a parked test)

| Test | Park mechanism | Log row / citation |
|---|---|---|
| `09-codex-r3` | Mechanical park — needs a prospective, effort-weighted, total-recovery archaeological survey; EDR, like EDB, is a curated catalogue of already-published material, not that instrument, regardless of province count | Bundle §2.5 ("MECHANICAL PARK — registered now, not deferred to staging"); ratified at bundle countersignature ("The mechanical parks (09-codex-r3, 18-grok-r1)... are ratified with their reasons") |
| `18-grok-r1` | Mechanical park — same reasoning: needs a "total-recovery sample," which a curated catalogue structurally cannot supply | Bundle §2.8; ratified at bundle countersignature |
| `11-grok-r1` | Region-inventory park — Raetia/Noricum return **zero rows** in EDR's region-label inventory | Bundle §8 row **P1**; independently reconfirmed at staging-report countersignature ("the three Raetia/Noricum rivals mechanically PARK as pre-registered") |
| `12-codex-r1` | Same region-inventory park | Bundle §8 row **P1** |
| `12-grok-r1` | Same region-inventory park | Bundle §8 row **P1** |

These five needed no EAGLE-audit input at all — they parked on structural/mechanical grounds
already resolved before gate 4 opened. They are listed here, not scored, per the task's
instruction to make the roster gap visible rather than silently dropping them.

**Also excluded from this registry, not because it parked but because it is registered
separately:** `r2-edh-b1-13` (the Jireček line) is not an ordinary registry entry — the
decision doc registers it as its own triangulation family, §1.2 below.

**Also not a whole-test park, but relevant:** the Rome triangulation's confessional-scope
sub-arm (estimand 2b) is separately, mechanically parked — bundle §8 row **P2**, triggered by
the staging report's confirmed 0.0000% confession-field presence (§7f). This is a
field-presence park from gate 3, distinct in kind from anything this gate-4 audit produces;
it is not re-litigated below, and the triangulation is scored on what remains (§1.2).

### 1.2 Live — scored below (9 registry rivals + the Rome triangulation as its own unit)

| # | Test | Base conjecture | Template | Bucket (frozen sensitivity-weight table) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `02-codex-r2` | -02 (no province ≥30%) | P | Spatial/province-count, weight 0.3 |
| 2 | `02-grok-r2` | -02 | P | Spatial/province-count, weight 0.3 |
| 3 | `03-grok-r2` | -03 (heavy-tailed shape) | P | Spatial/province-count, weight 0.3 |
| 4 | `06-codex-r3` | -06 (exact-date ≤40%) | G | Genre/monument-type/material, weight 0.8 (bundle's own bucketing — see §3.2's note on this) |
| 5 | `09-grok-r1` | -09 (epitaph/votive plurality) | G | Genre/monument-type/material, weight 0.8 |
| 6 | `09-grok-r2` | -09 | G | Genre/monument-type/material, weight 0.8 |
| 7 | `14-codex-r2` | -14 (habit peak 1st/2nd c.) | G | Chronology, weight 0.6 |
| 8 | `18-codex-r2` | -18 (bracket density ≥35%) | G (weakened) | Genre/monument-type/material, weight 0.8 |
| 9 | `18-grok-r2` | -18 | G (weakened) | Genre/monument-type/material, weight 0.8 |
| 10 | Rome triangulation | -13 (Jireček line), registered separately | §6 | "Rome-triangulation-style" language bucket, weight 1.0 (primary reading); see §5.4 on a narrower secondary reading at weight 0.6 |

9 + 1 = 10 scored units, against the 14-registry-minus-5-parked = 9 accounting the bundle's
own §2.9 reconciliation anticipates, plus the separately-registered triangulation.

---

## 2. Dimensions A, B, D — shared evidence base (mostly test-invariant)

### 2.1 Dimension A — record genealogy, residual beyond TM-linkage

**Question (bundle §5):** "Beyond §3's TM/supplemental exclusions, is there evidence of
further shared record-level lineage... that TM-matching didn't catch?"

**What is already handled elsewhere, restated once so it is not double-counted below:** the
staging report's own numbers — 10,368 EDR records excluded by confirmed TM-overlap against
EDH (§5), and a residual envelope R = 1,483 as an *upper bound*, expressly flagged as
conservative-high by the countersignatory's own N2 adjudication ("both §7c/§7d caveats push
the true residual down") — are the §3/§4 machinery's own output, not this dimension's. This
audit's dimension A is scoped strictly to evidence of *further* sharing beyond that,
consistent with the decision doc's correction #1 ("d_dep may not excuse record overlap...
k_eff addresses correlated conventions and editorial practice, and nothing else").

**Evidence actually available:** the bundle's own named calibration channel for this
dimension — supplemental TM-linkage channel 3 (provenance fingerprint), run against the
already-TM-excluded set — was **not executed** (staging report §5: "genuinely not executed;
both require analytical choices this lane was not directed to make"). Channel 1 (explicit
source cross-reference) was checked and found structurally moot (0 records). Channel 2
(bibliography concordance) was also not executed. This pass cannot run these channels either
— doing so would require querying `edr_staging`, which the blind rule forbids — so the
evidentiary state for dimension A is genuinely and specifically thin: no calibration number
exists showing whether residual sharing beyond TM-linkage is negligible or substantial for
any specific matched population.

**Score: A = 1 (weak/indirect), applied uniformly to every live test, including the
triangulation.** Not 0: EDR's own disclosed 9.85% EDH-origin rate is a real, documented,
non-trivial base rate for this corpus pair, and the calibration channel that would let this
dimension distinguish "residual is negligible" from "residual is substantial" was never run
— treating that as "no evidence of sharing" would overstate confidence the evidence does not
support. Not 2 or higher: the one adjudicated fact bearing directly on the size of what is
left over (N2's own conservative-upper-bound framing) points toward the residual being
*smaller*, not larger, than its 1,483 figure, and nothing found in this pass's public-
documentation search positively indicates additional, uncaught record-level lineage for any
specific matched population. A confirmed-direct finding (which would score 3 and trigger the
hard override) does not exist and cannot be manufactured from documentation alone.

**Hard-override check (bundle §5(b)):** since A never reaches 3 for any test in this audit,
**the override never triggers anywhere in this report.** This is stated as a fact about the
evidence, not a design choice — if supplemental channels 2–3 are later executed and do find
confirmed direct residual genealogy for a specific matched population, that finding requires
a dated amendment re-opening this dimension for the affected test(s), per the bundle's own §8
discipline, not a silent revision of this report.

**One asymmetry noted for the triangulation specifically, not scored differently because of
it:** bundle §6.7 records that the EDB–EDR overlap audit (unlike EDH–EDR) has not been run at
all — not even the primary TM channel. Partially offsetting this added uncertainty, public
documentation directly confirms EDR's and EDB's scopes are federation-designed to be
*complementary*, not overlapping: the EAGLE Portal's own EDR collection page states EDR's
remit as "the whole epigraphy of Rome and the Italian peninsula... except Christian
inscriptions" (already on record, `tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` §access-log), and
this session's own search independently reproduced the same boundary from a different public
source: EDR covers Roman-Italian epigraphy "with the exception of the Christian inscriptions
recorded by the Epigraphic Database Bari (EDB)." A documented, by-design non-overlapping
subject boundary is real evidence against extensive EDB–EDR *record*-level sharing, but says
nothing about editorial (dimension B) sharing between the two — so it tempers, without
lowering, the A=1 call for the triangulation: the added uncertainty from an unrun audit and
the mitigating scope-boundary fact roughly cancel, leaving no honest basis to score the
triangulation's A differently from the province-level tests.

### 2.2 Dimension B — editorial-source genealogy

**Question:** "Do EDH, EDB, and EDR draw on shared underlying publications/bibliographic
sources... or overlapping named contributors/institutions, even for physically distinct
records?"

**Direct, primary-source, confirmed evidence — the strongest finding in this audit.** EDR's
own "Structure and Organization" page (`strutt_en.php`, fetched live this session) names
every collaborating institution and individual. Two findings from it are dispositive:

1. **EDR's own page lists "Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften - EDH" as a formal
   collaborating institution**, by name, with its team roster given verbatim: "team members:
   J. Cowey, A. Dafferner, **F. Feraudi-Gruenais**, B. Ruck." Further down the same page,
   under Sapienza's own Rome section, EDR separately credits **"F. Feraudi-Grünais
   (Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften)"** by name as a contributing colleague. This is
   the *same individual* the dischargeability roster's own `responsible_individual` analysis
   identifies as **EDH's single largest contributor — Feraudi = 29.37% of the EDH holdout,
   spanning 29 of 32 holdout provinces** (`docs/generated/quincunx_rival_dischargeability_20260809.md`,
   already transcribed into the frozen bundle's own §5 evidence-source line). EDH's largest
   single named contributor is credited, by name, on EDR's own institutional roster.
2. **EDB's entire named creator roster appears on EDR's own roster as University of Bari
   team leadership.** EDB's Zenodo-registered creators are Carlo Carletti, Antonio Enrico
   Felle, and Anita Rocco (`EDB_ATTRIBUTION`, `apps/scriptome/services/edb_census.py`).
   EDR's structure page lists, verbatim: **"Università degli studi di BARI - Dpt. of
   Classics (Directors: C. Carletti, M. Chelotti, A.E. Felle, M. Silvestrini; team members:
   ... A. Rocco...)."** All three of EDB's own named creators are named, individually, on
   EDR's own collaborator roster.

This is corroborated at the federation level by `edb_census.py`'s own docstring ("EDB's own
header identifies EDH and EDR by name as fellow founding EAGLE members") and by the
EAGLE Portal's own "who we are" page, already on record via
`tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` (9 named EAGLE member databases under one
federation).

**Score: B = 3 (strong/confirmed direct), applied uniformly to every live test, including
the triangulation.** This is not a conservative default chosen under uncertainty — it is a
directly observed fact, fetched from a primary source this session, naming specific
individuals on both sides of both relevant corpus pairs (EDH↔EDR via Feraudi; EDB↔EDR via
Carletti/Felle/Rocco). The dimension's own question text explicitly includes "overlapping
named contributors... even for physically distinct records" as its own sufficient criterion;
that is exactly what was found, not inferred.

### 2.3 Dimension D — shared software/conversion conventions

**Question:** "Do EDH/EDB/EDR share the same EpiDoc conversion pipeline, TEI schema version,
or date-encoding convention?"

**Strong, multiply-confirmed evidence of a shared pipeline at the federation level:**

- EDR's own Zenodo deposit description: "automatic conversion of **some contents** of EDR
  into EpiDoc" (bundle §1.1).
- The staging report's own structural parse confirms EDR's dump uses the same
  `http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0` TEI namespace EDB's own parser uses (staging report §3), and
  that EDR's date field is literally `origDate` carrying `notBefore-`/`notAfter-custom`
  attributes (staging report §4) — the *exact* attribute names EDB's own confirmed
  `origDate/@notBefore-custom`/`@notAfter-custom` convention uses (`edb_census.py`).
- Public documentation, found and read this session, confirms this is not coincidental
  convergence but a **documented, shared, federation-built pipeline**: "EAGLE-Conformant
  EpiDoc" is a named standard, and XSLT-based conversion tooling
  (`github.com/EAGLE-BPN/epidocupconversion`) was used to convert real, counted record
  volumes from all three corpora — approximately 65,000 EDH, 15,000 EDB, and 15,000 EDR
  records, per a Balisage/CIDOC technical paper on EAGLE's infrastructure found via
  WebSearch. The same paper describes a deliberate two-level harmonization (TEI-EpiDoc for
  the text, CIDOC-CRM for object/relation semantics) applied federation-wide.

**One disclosed, evidence-driven asymmetry: EDH-facing tests score differently from the
EDB-facing triangulation.** This project's own held EDH data was harvested through EDH's
*live JSON API* (`edh_census.py`: `EDH_SEARCH_PATH = "/data/api/inschrift/suche"`), not
EDH's own EpiDoc/XML dump — a deliberate choice for this project's own province-holdout
discipline, unrelated to EDR. The specific EDH values any EDH-facing rival test compares
against EDR therefore never passed through the shared EpiDoc/XSLT conversion step the
paragraph above documents; only EDR's (and, for the triangulation, EDB's) values did.
Reinforcing this as a real, not merely formal, difference: `edh_census.py`'s own
characterization work found a **confirmed EDH-specific idiosyncrasy** — its JSON API's
`not_before`/`not_after` keys are empirically swapped relative to their English gloss (0
counter-examples in 378 checked records) — a disclosed defect specific to EDH's own pipeline,
not shared with EDB or (so far as documented) EDR. This does not erase the federation-level
commonality (EDH's *own* corpus does also publish an EpiDoc XML dump elsewhere, per
`edh_census.py`'s own docstring, so the underlying database is not disconnected from the
shared convention family) — but it means the specific held representation being compared, in
every EDH-facing test, is one serialization step removed from the confirmed shared pipeline.

**Score: D = 2 (moderate/documented) for every EDH-facing test** (everything in §1.2 except
the triangulation) **— D = 3 (strong/confirmed direct) for the Rome triangulation**, which
directly compares EDR against EDB, both confirmed EpiDoc/TEI-native with matching
`notBefore-custom`/`notAfter-custom` attributes and no JSON-API intermediary.

---

## 3. Dimension C — ontology harmonization (varies by test)

### 3.1 What EAGLE's controlled vocabularies actually cover — a primary-source finding

Fetched directly this session, `https://www.eagle-network.eu/resources/vocabularies/`
(EAGLE Portal). **The complete, named list of EAGLE controlled vocabularies is seven:
Material, Execution Technique, Type of Inscription, Object Type, Decoration, Dating
Criteria, State of Preservation.** Two negative findings from the same primary source matter
directly to the scoring below: **no vocabulary on this list covers geographic place/region/
findspot naming, and none covers language-of-text** (the closest adjacent entry, Execution
Technique, concerns manufacture method, not language).

This is corroborated, independently, by evidence already in hand rather than newly sought:
the bundle's own §2.1 crosswalk needed **hand name-matching**, not a shared identifier join,
between EDH's province codes and EDR's regione names; and the staging report's own A1 log
entry (§7a) found real string-level mismatches needing a dated normalization decision
("cum insulis" qualifiers, "Bruttii" vs. "Bruttium") between the two corpora's region labels.
If a shared, machine-actionable EAGLE place ontology were what these specific fields drew on,
no such hand-normalization would have been needed at all. This is treated as confirming,
not merely consistent with, the primary-source absence finding above.

Separately, the staging report's own permitted structural check (§7e) already found EAGLE
`ref=` vocabulary URIs pervasively present on EDR's own object-type (96.5%), material
(96.4%), and genre/keywords (97.3%) fields — matching EDB's own confirmed 100% coverage on
the same three fields (`_vocab_field`, `edb_census.py`). The bundle's own §5 table separately
discloses that **EDH's own exposed field for the adjacent facet (`type_of_monument`) is
confirmed English free text with no `ref=` URI structure at all** — a real, already-disclosed
EDH/EDB difference (bundle §5, citing the roster's own §E.6).

### 3.2 Scores by test-type bucket

**Spatial/province-count tests (`02-codex-r2`, `02-grok-r2`, `03-grok-r2`) — C = 0.** These
tests' entire estimand runs on region/province labels. No EAGLE vocabulary covers place at
all (§3.1), and the specific, disclosed fact that EDH's and EDR's own region-label strings
needed manual reconciliation is direct, confirmed, already-on-record evidence that this
specific field is *not* drawn from a shared controlled list. This is the one dimension score
in this audit backed by a clean, confirmed *absence*, not an inference from silence.

**Genre/monument-type/material tests directly matching a named EAGLE vocabulary
(`06-codex-r3`, `09-grok-r1`, `09-grok-r2`) — C = 2.** `09-grok-r1`'s medium/material facet
maps directly onto the named "Material" vocabulary; `09-grok-r2`'s genre-plurality facet
maps onto "Type of Inscription"; `06-codex-r3`'s exact-date-rate facet maps onto "Dating
Criteria" (its own secondary by-genre breakdown additionally touches "Type of Inscription").
All three vocabularies are confirmed to exist, confirmed federation-wide, and confirmed at
96–100% implementation on EDR's and EDB's own exposed fields. Not scored 3: the EDH-side
field these tests actually compare against is confirmed free text without the `ref=`
structure (§3.1), so the shared-vocabulary risk, while real and documented (hence not 1), is
not confirmed *for the specific comparison each test runs* (hence not 3).

**Bracket/lacuna-markup tests (`18-codex-r2`, `18-grok-r2`) — C = 1.** Bracket density
(textual-loss marking) is not one of the seven named EAGLE vocabularies; the closest
analogy, "State of Preservation," is a looser conceptual fit than the direct hits above. More
importantly, the actual mechanism these two tests are exposed to — shared Leiden-convention/
TEI `<gap>`/`<supplied>` encoding practice — is an *encoding convention*, already captured
directly and more precisely under dimension D. Scoring C at the same level as the
vocabulary-direct-hit tests above would substantially double-count that one piece of
evidence under two dimension labels; C = 1 (weak/indirect: a real but loose analogy,
distinguished from the confirmed-absent case above) avoids that.

**Chronology test (`14-codex-r2`) — C = 2.** Same "Dating Criteria" vocabulary match as
`06-codex-r3`'s primary facet; scored identically and for the same reason.

**Rome triangulation — C = 2.** The triangulation's *primary*, headline estimand is language
proportion — and language is confirmed **absent** from EAGLE's seven named vocabularies
(§3.1), directly undercutting the bundle's own stated rationale for this test bucket's 1.0
sensitivity weight ("language tagging is exactly what EAGLE's controlled vocabulary
harmonizes" — see §6's discussion of this). The triangulation's *secondary* estimand
(type/context standardization, §6.6(2)(a)) draws on genre/type fields that are, unlike
language, confirmed EAGLE-vocabulary-tagged at high coverage on both non-parked corpora in
this triangulation (EDB 100%, EDR ~97.3%, both confirmed). C = 2 nets these: strong,
confirmed sharing on a real secondary sub-arm; no confirmed vocabulary basis at all for the
primary arm. This dimension-C finding is itself one of this audit's flagged peculiarities —
see §6.

---

## 4. Per-test scoring tables

Every table below repeats the applicable weight (frozen, bundle §5) and the four dimension
scores (§2–§3), then computes `d_dep = 1 − sensitivity_weight × (composite / 12)` per the
frozen formula. "Range" reflects the honest adjacent-score sensitivity discussed in §0.3,
not a second independent estimate; the point estimate is this report's own recommended
figure unless a floor note says otherwise.

### 4.1 Spatial/province-count bucket — weight 0.3

| Test | A | B | C | D | Composite | d_dep (point) | d_dep (range) | Floor | Override (A=3?) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `02-codex-r2` | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 6 | **0.850** | [0.80, 0.85] | Clears, wide margin | No — A=1 |
| `02-grok-r2` | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 6 | **0.850** | [0.80, 0.85] | Clears, wide margin | No — A=1 |
| `03-grok-r2` | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 6 | **0.850** | [0.80, 0.85] | Clears, wide margin | No — A=1 |

Range built from C∈{0,1} (a small allowance for EAGLE's GIS/Terminologies working group
possibly maintaining an unconfirmed place-adjacent list) × D∈{2,3}. Lowest plausible reading
(0.80) is nowhere near the 0.4 floor; no flag needed for this bucket.

### 4.2 Genre/monument-type/material bucket, vocabulary-direct — weight 0.8

| Test | A | B | C | D | Composite | d_dep (point) | d_dep (range) | Floor | Override (A=3?) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `06-codex-r3` | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | **0.467** | [0.40, 0.53] | Clears, modest margin | No — A=1 |
| `09-grok-r1` | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | **0.467** | [0.40, 0.53] | Clears, modest margin | No — A=1 |
| `09-grok-r2` | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | **0.467** | [0.40, 0.53] | Clears, modest margin | No — A=1 |

Range built from C∈{1,2} × D∈{2,3}. **Flag:** the pessimistic edge of this range — reached
if dimension D is scored at the uniform 3 this report gave the triangulation, i.e. if the
countersignatory does not accept §2.3's JSON-API/EpiDoc-XML asymmetry as D-lowering for
EDH-facing tests — lands exactly on the 0.4 floor. This report's own point estimate (0.467)
clears with real margin, but the margin's entire size rests on that one dimension-D judgment
call. Worth the countersignatory's direct attention; see §6.

### 4.3 Bracket/lacuna-markup bucket — weight 0.8

| Test | A | B | C | D | Composite | d_dep (point) | d_dep (range) | Floor | Override (A=3?) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `18-codex-r2` | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | **0.533** | [0.40, 0.53] | Clears, modest margin | No — A=1 |
| `18-grok-r2` | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7 | **0.533** | [0.40, 0.53] | Clears, modest margin | No — A=1 |

Both of these already carry the bundle's own ceiling cap of PARTIALLY/methodological-
analogy-only on their verdict thresholds (§2.8) independent of this audit; the d_dep
discount here is additive to, not a substitute for, that existing cap.

### 4.4 Chronology bucket — weight 0.6

| Test | A | B | C | D | Composite | d_dep (point) | d_dep (range) | Floor | Override (A=3?) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `14-codex-r2` | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | **0.600** | [0.55, 0.65] | Clears, comfortable margin | No — A=1 |

`14-codex-r2` already carries its own separate feasibility flag in the bundle (§2.7: "flagged
as doubtful on current documentation" that EDR clears its 1st/2nd-century minimum-data rule
at all) — this audit's d_dep is independent of, and does not resolve, that separate
minimum-data question.

### 4.5 Rome triangulation — weight 1.0 (primary) / 0.6 (secondary reading)

| Reading | A | B | C | D | Composite | d_dep (point) | d_dep (range) | Floor | Override (A=3?) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary — language contrast (estimands 1 and 2's language outcome) | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 9 | **0.250** | [0.167, 0.417] | **BELOW 0.4 — PARKS** | No — A=1 |
| Secondary — "chronology-matching" reading (Pattern 3's own scope-explains-the-gap call only, if the countersignatory judges this the narrower thing the frozen table's parenthetical names) | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 9 | **0.550** | [0.50, 0.60] | Clears | No — A=1 |

See §5.4 and §6 for the reasoning behind reporting two readings rather than one, and why the
primary reading — not the secondary one — is this report's own governing recommendation.

---

## 5. d_dep summary and the floor rule

### 5.1 Summary table, all ten scored units

| Test | Weight | Composite (point) | d_dep (point) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `02-codex-r2` | 0.3 | 6 | 0.850 | Live |
| `02-grok-r2` | 0.3 | 6 | 0.850 | Live |
| `03-grok-r2` | 0.3 | 6 | 0.850 | Live |
| `06-codex-r3` | 0.8 | 8 | 0.467 | Live |
| `09-grok-r1` | 0.8 | 8 | 0.467 | Live |
| `09-grok-r2` | 0.8 | 8 | 0.467 | Live |
| `14-codex-r2` | 0.6 | 8 | 0.600 | Live |
| `18-codex-r2` | 0.8 | 7 | 0.533 | Live |
| `18-grok-r2` | 0.8 | 7 | 0.533 | Live |
| Rome triangulation (primary, 1.0) | 1.0 | 9 | **0.250** | **PARKS — below floor** |
| Rome triangulation (secondary, 0.6, if adopted) | 0.6 | 9 | 0.550 | Live, narrower scope |

**d_dep range across the 9 ordinary registry tests: 0.467–0.850.** No ordinary registry test
hits the floor outright under this report's point estimates; three (§4.2) clear it by a
margin whose size is sensitive to one disclosed dimension-D judgment call.

### 5.2 Floor rule applied

Per bundle §5(a): "d_dep is floored at 0.4 — below that, the test is treated as PARKED, not
discounted." **Exactly one unit in this audit crosses that line: the Rome triangulation, at
its primary/governing weight (1.0), computing to d_dep = 0.250.**

This is not a fragile, one-dimension-away result. Holding B = 3 and D = 3 fixed (both are
this report's most solidly-evidenced scores — primary-source-confirmed personnel overlap and
primary-source-confirmed matching EpiDoc/TEI schema, respectively, neither a close call), the
composite would need to drop to 7 (from this report's point estimate of 9) before d_dep
clears 0.4 at weight 1.0 — which requires **both** A = 0 (rejected in §2.1 as understating
the documented 9.85% base rate) **and** C = 0 (rejected in §3.2 as ignoring the confirmed
genre/type-vocabulary sharing on the triangulation's own secondary arm) simultaneously. This
report does not consider that combination defensible. Under every dimension-scoring
combination this report considers honestly reachable, weight-1.0 d_dep for the triangulation
falls in **[0.167, 0.417]** — parked, or (at the single most generous defensible edge)
clearing by less margin than any other test in this audit.

### 5.3 Genealogy-override check, all tests

Dimension A never reaches 3 anywhere in this audit (§2.1), so **the hard override — "if
dimension A alone scores 3, that test is EXCLUDED outright regardless of composite score" —
does not trigger for any test.** This is confirmed per-test in each table's own "Override"
column above, not merely asserted once.

### 5.4 Why two readings are reported for the triangulation

The frozen sensitivity-weight table (bundle §5) names two things that could plausibly govern
the triangulation: "language tests (**-13/Rome-triangulation-style**) 1.0" — which explicitly
and unambiguously places triangulation-style tests in the 1.0 bucket by name — and,
separately, "chronology tests (-14, and **the triangulation's chronology-matching**) 0.6,"
which names a narrower thing inside the triangulation without fully specifying its scope.
Read most naturally, the 1.0 line is the triangulation's *default* classification and the 0.6
mention is a carve-out for one specific sub-analysis — most plausibly Pattern 3 (§6.9),
"convergence after scope adjustment... chronology/corpus-scope composition explains the gap"
— not a wholesale reassignment of the triangulation's headline language-proportion contrasts.
This report treats the **primary (1.0) reading as governing** for that reason, and reports
the secondary (0.6) reading only as what a narrower Pattern-3-only sub-analysis would compute
to, for the countersignatory's own choice. This split is itself flagged as a peculiarity
needing adjudication — §6.1.

---

## 6. Peculiarities for the countersignatory to adjudicate

### 6.1 Headline finding: the Rome triangulation parks under its own frozen weight

The flagship triangulation — registered specifically because "it was motivated before anyone
saw EDR's Rome numbers" (decision doc) — computes to d_dep = 0.250 at its own frozen,
by-name-assigned 1.0 sensitivity weight, below the 0.4 floor, under every dimension-scoring
combination this report considers defensible (§5.2). Three things the countersignatory may
want to weigh, none of which this report resolves on its own authority:

1. **Whether the 1.0-weight bucket is really the right fit.** This report's own dimension-C
   finding (§3.1) — that EAGLE's seven named controlled vocabularies do not include language
   at all — directly undercuts the bundle's *stated reason* for assigning 1.0 ("language
   tagging is exactly what EAGLE's controlled vocabulary harmonizes"), even though the bundle
   text unambiguously places "Rome-triangulation-style" tests in that bucket by name
   regardless of the stated reason. If the countersignatory judges the *reason* controls over
   the *label*, the secondary 0.6 reading (§5.4, d_dep = 0.550, clears) becomes the more
   defensible governing figure, and the primary-source finding driving that reconsideration
   (dimension D, not C, is where language-adjacent sharing is actually confirmed via the
   shared TEI `@xml:lang`/EpiDoc convention) is itself new evidence from this pass, not
   already in the frozen bundle.
2. **Whether to commission the unexecuted supplemental TM-linkage channels (2–3) and the
   never-run EDB–EDR overlap audit (§6.7)** before finalizing this figure — dimension A's
   score (1, weak/indirect, the single most evidence-starved dimension in this report) is the
   one most likely to move with real new information, and the triangulation is the unit where
   an unrun pairwise audit (EDB–EDR) adds the most uncertainty.
3. **If the park stands:** per bundle §5's own framing, a park here is not a failure of the
   corpus or the design — it is d_dep doing exactly the job the decision doc assigned it
   ("a discount that large would functionally erase the test's evidentiary value while still
   nominally 'running' it"). The triangulation would need to be published, if at all, on the
   strength of narrower sub-analyses (the Pattern-3/chronology reading, §5.4) rather than as
   the full three-way language-proportion headline the decision doc originally registered it
   to produce.

### 6.2 Second finding: three of nine ordinary tests clear the floor by a margin that hinges on one dimension-D call

`06-codex-r3`, `09-grok-r1`, `09-grok-r2` (§4.2) compute to d_dep = 0.467 under this report's
point estimate, but to exactly 0.400 (the floor itself) under the single alternative reading
this report considered and rejected — scoring dimension D uniformly at 3 for EDH-facing
tests rather than the 2 this report assigned on the strength of the JSON-API/EpiDoc-XML
serialization asymmetry (§2.3). This report's own reasoning for D = 2 is evidence-based, not
arbitrary (a confirmed EDH-specific pipeline idiosyncrasy — the not_before/not_after swap —
reinforces treating EDH's held representation as one step removed from the shared EpiDoc
pipeline) — but it is a genuine judgment call, not a fact with the same evidentiary weight as
dimension B's named-personnel finding, and it is worth the countersignatory's direct look
given it is the deciding factor for a third of the live registry.

### 6.3 Third finding: dimension C's EAGLE-vocabulary-scope finding may be worth folding back into the frozen bundle's own record

This report's primary-source confirmation that EAGLE's seven controlled vocabularies cover
material/execution/inscription-type/object-type/decoration/dating/preservation and
**nothing geographic and nothing linguistic** (§3.1) is new information relative to what the
frozen bundle had on hand when it wrote its own sensitivity-weight justifications ("region...
locally defined," "language... exactly what EAGLE's controlled vocabulary harmonizes"). The
first of those bundle statements is now more strongly confirmed than it was at drafting; the
second is now directly contradicted by a primary source. This report applies the frozen
weights exactly as written regardless (per this gate's own instruction), but flags the
underlying-rationale question for whoever next revisits the bundle's own text, separate from
anything this gate authorizes changing today.

### 6.4 No other floor-triggers, no other override-triggers, no contamination-sensitive labels assigned

Every other live test clears the 0.4 floor under this report's point estimate (§5.1).
Dimension A never reaches the override threshold anywhere (§5.3). This audit does not itself
compute the two-direction adversarial residual-reassignment check bundle §4 defines (that
machinery runs on actual rival outcomes, which this blind pass never touches) — nothing here
should be read as a CONTAMINATION-SENSITIVE determination; that label is §4's to apply, at
outcome-execution time, not this gate's.

---

## 7. Closing status

This report populates the frozen §5 rubric, blind to every rival's result, per
`docs/DECISION_EDR_SPEND_20260809.md`'s gate-4 instruction. It is **not** self-marked
VERIFIED or FROZEN. No `git` command was run and no commit was made as part of this pass. The
orchestrator's countersignature is the next authorized step; per the bundle's own §8
discipline, any adjudication of the peculiarities in §6 should be entered as dated rows
there, the same mechanism already used for the staging report's own P1/P2/N1/N2/A1–A4
entries.

---

## COUNTERSIGNATURE — 9 August 2026

**The d_dep values in §5.1 are FROZEN as this audit reports them.** Adjudications, entered
as row A5 in the bundle's §8 log:

1. **The primary (1.0) reading governs; the Rome triangulation's three-way
   language-proportion headline PARKS.** The frozen table assigns
   "Rome-triangulation-style" to the 1.0 bucket by name; re-weighting after seeing the
   computed value — with the effect of clearing the flagship — would be retrospective
   redesign of the version under judgment. The §3.1 vocabulary finding invalidates the
   bundle's *stated reason* but not the weight's *level*: the audit located the
   language-adjacent dependence in dimensions B and D instead (named-personnel identity
   between EDB's creators and EDR's leadership; shared TEI/EpiDoc conventions), which
   vindicates high sensitivity on better evidence than the bundle had. Wrong reason,
   right weight — recorded, not glossed.
2. **The park is monotone-robust, so no further evidence is commissioned to relitigate
   it.** B = 3 and D = 3 are primary-sourced facts; C = 2 is well-evidenced; A = 1 can
   only rise with new linkage information. More evidence can strengthen this park or
   trigger the override; it cannot reverse the park. The A2 tombstone on supplemental
   linkage channels 2–3 therefore stands unmodified.
3. **The frozen 0.6 carve-out survives as written:** the chronology-matching /
   Pattern-3 sub-analysis runs at d_dep = 0.550, scoped strictly to "does chronology or
   corpus-scope composition explain the gap" — never to adjudicating which corpus
   reflects Rome. Decision patterns 1, 2, and 4 are UNCALLABLE this run; verdict wording
   is constrained to Pattern 3's own vocabulary. Precondition: the bundle's §6.7
   EDB–EDR overlap audit (structural record-identity only) must run before this arm
   executes.
4. **Dimension-D call upheld for the three margin tests** (06-codex-r3, 09-grok-r1,
   09-grok-r2): D = 2 is the better-evidenced reading (serialization asymmetry, confirmed
   EDH pipeline idiosyncrasy). Obligation attached: their verdicts disclose both values
   (0.467 governing, 0.400 alternative — which is AT the floor, not below it, so the
   live/park status is identical under either reading).
5. **The §3.1 EAGLE-vocabulary-scope finding is recorded** as a correction to the frozen
   bundle's rationale text via the log (the frozen text itself stays untouched); anyone
   revisiting the bundle reads the rationale together with that row.

If the park stands through publication, it publishes AS a result: the blind dependence
audit parked the flagship before any outcome was computed, on primary-source evidence
that the would-be independent third witness shares personnel and pipeline with one of
the two parties it was to arbitrate. That is the audit doing precisely the job the
decision doc assigned it, and it is a genuine finding about the independence structure
of the epigraphic-database ecosystem.

Countersigned: Claude (orchestrator). Next authorized step: gate 5 (freeze executable
analyses), with the §6.7 EDB–EDR structural overlap audit as its first item.
