---
conjecture: r3-b1-25
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": "A shared portal-rendering or harvesting transformation may erase both fields for records using particular schemas, encodings, or import templates even when language or script is present in another representation of the same catalogue record. The affected templates could constitute less than 15% of each state's records.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "States would differ according to their mix of import batches, producing a few shares above 10% and many below 3.6%. Because the same portal and extraction pipeline serve every state, the same minority-template constraint would also keep all nine holdouts below 15% without implying that the underlying catalogue entries lack the information.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "portal rendering or API field-loss artifact",
        "harvest parser or null-token normalization",
        "state-specific import-template composition"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For every classified blank record, re-fetch the raw response and all alternative portal representations, such as search results, detail pages, downloads, and API responses, then compare the language and script values field by field and stratify disagreements by import batch or record schema.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if a substantial, batch-concentrated fraction of supposedly blank records has language or script populated in another portal representation; genuine source absence predicts consistent blankness across representations."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "Well-described holdings may be disproportionately split into multiple portal records or duplicated during ingestion, whereas poorly described blank holdings remain single records. This inflates the denominator with nonblank records and can mechanically keep the record-level blank share below 15%.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Widespread expansion of nonblank holdings would suppress the ratio in both training and holdout states. Differences in duplication or volume-splitting intensity could produce the observed state variation, including several states near 10% and most below 3.6%, without requiring a common ceiling on source-data incompleteness.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "record-versus-holding unit-of-count effect",
        "duplicate-record denominator inflation",
        "multi-volume or multi-copy record splitting"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Cluster records into unique physical holdings or catalogue entries using stable identifiers, shelf marks, institution, title, and duplicate fingerprints; then recompute blank shares after giving each cluster one unit of weight and measure field-specific cluster multiplicity.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if nonblank clusters have substantially higher multiplicity and deduplication materially raises blank shares, especially if any state crosses 15% or the original state shares are strongly inversely related to nonblank multiplicity. A genuine completeness ceiling should be comparatively robust to this reweighting."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The portal's publication or accession workflow may preferentially admit records having at least one of language or script populated, while quarantining or omitting most records blank on both fields. The visible blanks would then be legacy exceptions or quality-control leakage rather than the full extent of source-catalogue incompleteness.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A portal-wide admission rule would operate in all training and holdout jurisdictions and directly constrain the blank share among published records. Variation below the ceiling could reflect different proportions of legacy imports, institutions, or workflow exceptions, while complete portal walks would not reveal records excluded before publication.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "selection into the published catalogue",
        "metadata-based accession or quality-control filtering",
        "legacy-import composition"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Link published portal records to complete institutional accession registers, rejected-ingest logs, or unpublished staging tables for each state, then estimate publication probability conditional on whether both fields are blank and recompute the blank share over all submitted source records.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if doubly blank source records have a markedly lower publication probability and the all-submitted-record blank share is materially higher, especially if it reaches 15% in a state while the published share remains below 15%. The stated mechanism does not predict such selective exclusion."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": "The observed ceiling is established for published portal records, but the evidence given does not by itself identify whether it arises upstream, during portal transformation, or from record counting."
}
