---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-16
family: grok
model: "Grok 4.5 expert (chat paste-back via orchestrator window)"
received: 2026-08-06
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 2
note: "Apostrophe as unicode escape. r1 (total-span arithmetic) is another potential uninformative-floor exposure, same family as 07/08's sampling rivals; both tests computable."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "The total chronological span of dated inscriptions in most provinces is itself limited (often to roughly six centuries or fewer of significant Roman-period activity), so a six-century window centred on the modal century captures at least 90 percent of the dated rows by simple arithmetic coverage rather than by any internal concentration of production around a single peak.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Because the limited overall temporal support is a property of the provincial histories already encoded in the fixed EDH catalogue, every province that meets the 150-row threshold will satisfy the 90 percent criterion in both the alphabetical training half and the holdout half once the window is placed on its own mode.",
"named_confounds": [
"limited historical duration of intense provincial epigraphic activity",
"unit-of-count / temporal-support effect (overall span already near the window width)"
],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "For each eligible province compute the length of the interval from its earliest to its latest securely dated inscription (or the narrowest interval covering 95 percent of its dated rows) and compare that full span with the six-century window.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If the full chronological span of dated rows is six to seven centuries or less for the majority of provinces, the 90 percent result is largely automatic and favours the short-span mechanism over genuine concentration within a longer possible Roman period."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "Precise century-level dating is feasible mainly for inscriptions that employ standardised imperial, consular or formulaic markers, which themselves cluster temporally around each province\u2019s modal period; inscriptions from the temporal fringes receive wider date ranges and are either excluded from the dated-row denominator or contribute more diffusely, artificially inflating the share that falls inside the six-century window.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "The dating-filter and precision bias operate uniformly across the fixed catalogue, so every eligible province in both alphabetical halves displays a compact share once the window is centred on its own (formula-driven) mode.",
"named_confounds": [
"dating-method availability bias",
"selection of what counts as a dated row",
"precision of chronological assignment concentrated near modal periods"
],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Recompute the cumulative share inside the centred six-century window after expanding every date assignment to its full reported range (or after including all inscriptions that carry any chronological indication) and after treating wide-range dates uniformly rather than assigning them to single centuries.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If the share inside the six-century window falls below 90 percent for multiple provinces under the expanded or uniform treatment, the result favours the dating-assignment artefact over true concentration of production."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
