---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-18
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": "The floor is produced by EDH-specific ingestion and editorial workflows: a small set of source corpora, editors, or normalization rules preserves or inserts square-bracket notation consistently across records from many provinces. The apparent geographic universality therefore reflects shared data-production infrastructure rather than discipline-wide consistency responding to physical damage.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If both alphabetical halves contain records processed through the same dominant corpora and workflows, every sufficiently large province would inherit a high baseline bracket rate. This directly explains both the 50.71% training minimum and the 39.26% holdout minimum despite the geographic split, which does not separate records by source publication, contributor, or ingestion batch.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "EDH-specific data-entry practice",
        "source-corpus clustering",
        "editor or ingestion-batch effects",
        "non-independent alphabetical holdout"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Using EDH provenance, bibliography, contributor, and ingestion metadata, estimate bracket density by source corpus, editor, and batch, then compare provinces within the same source and sources within the same province. The catalogue-workflow mechanism predicts that these production variables explain most variation and that province effects largely vanish; the proposed mechanism predicts stronger association with object-level damage or preservation indicators after controlling for workflow.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Large, reproducible source/editor/batch effects, weak residual province effects, and little association between brackets and object-level preservation would favor the rival."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The catalogue and its underlying publications selectively include inscriptions that are fragmentary, textually reconstructable, or considered worth scholarly editing, while intact, very short, or minimally informative objects are underrepresented. A universal floor can then arise from selection into the denominator rather than from a universal damage-and-notation process among surviving inscriptions generally.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "The same scholarly publication and catalogue-inclusion filters can operate in every province and in both alphabetical halves. With at least 100 selected records per province, those shared filters could keep all observed provincial proportions above 35% even if the complete archaeological population had much lower and more geographically variable bracket use.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "selection into scholarly publication",
        "catalogue inclusion bias",
        "undercoverage of intact or short inscriptions",
        "denominator restriction to catalogued objects"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For several provinces, link EDH records to independent excavation or museum inventories that enumerate all inscribed objects, including items absent from EDH. Compute bracket density or the proportion requiring restoration in the complete inventories, and model EDH inclusion as a function of fragmentation, text length, and restoration status.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Bracket density falling below 35% in one or more complete inventories, together with substantially higher EDH inclusion odds for fragmentary or restored texts, would favor the rival."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The floor is an aggregation and opportunity effect: the binary outcome asks whether a transcription contains at least one bracket, so longer texts and restoration-heavy inscription genres have many more chances to qualify. Similar mixtures of text lengths and genres across large provincial samples can mechanically maintain a provincial floor without requiring comparable damage prevalence everywhere.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Roman provincial catalogues can share broad compositional mixtures of long public, funerary, or formulaic texts and short texts. If bracket probability rises steeply with transcription length or genre, aggregating those records by province can yield minima above 35% in both training and holdout even when short or otherwise comparable inscriptions show no such floor.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "binary any-bracket unit of count",
        "transcription-length opportunity effect",
        "inscription-genre composition",
        "province-level aggregation"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Within EDH, model bracket presence by transcription length, inscription type, date, material, and province; then recompute provincial densities after standardizing every province to a common length-and-type distribution. Also calculate bracket events per fixed number of transcribed characters. The rival predicts that the provincial floor weakens or disappears after standardization even though the original row-level proportions remain high.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "A steep length/type dependence, negligible residual province contribution, and at least one standardized provincial estimate below 35% would favor the aggregation mechanism."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": "The alphabetical holdout strongly checks province-level recurrence within EDH, but it does not independently separate geographic generalization from catalogue-wide production, selection, or denominator mechanisms."
}
