---
conjecture: r3-b1-19
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
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "The concentration of Tibetan-tradition records at a single large institution in the training state is an artifact of that institution's own aggressive digitization and cataloguing campaign for its Tibetan holdings, while other states (including the at-risk holdout) have simply catalogued far fewer of their Tibetan manuscripts into the portal, producing the observed volume gap without any special link to diaspora presence.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the ~53,700 figure is driven by one institution's intensive cataloguing effort rather than by the real size of its holdings relative to diaspora presence, then every non-exile holdout (and even the at-risk state that includes some Tibetan-Buddhist regions) will stay well below that threshold simply because their Tibetan material has been less completely entered; the training and holdout outcomes match exactly.",
      "named_confounds": ["selection effects in what got catalogued", "differential digitization or cataloguing intensity by institution", "data-entry completeness for Tibetan-tradition records"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Obtain independent estimates of the physical size of Tibetan collections at the large training institution and at the top Tibetan institutions in the holdout states (from published inventories, monastery catalogues, or secondary literature) and compare those physical estimates against the portal's record counts; measure the portal-to-physical ratio for each.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If the portal-to-physical ratio is markedly higher for the training mega-institution than for the holdout institutions (i.e., the volume gap is cataloguing intensity), this favors the rival; if the ratios are similar and the physical collections themselves differ by the observed factor, this favors the proposed diaspora-presence mechanism."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The tradition='tibetan' label is applied more liberally or more completely inside the known training-state institution (and less consistently in other states), so the record-volume comparison is distorted by differential labeling practice rather than by real differences in the number of Tibetan-tradition manuscripts held.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If a large share of manuscripts that would be labeled Tibetan elsewhere remain unlabeled or are assigned different tradition tags in the holdout states, those states will show far fewer Tibetan records than the ~53,700 threshold even when they contain genuine Tibetan holdings, matching the observed survival of the claim including the at-risk state.",
      "named_confounds": ["cataloguing practice for tradition/language labels", "administrative classification artifact for Tibetan material"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For a sample of records from the large training institution and from the top institutions in holdout states that carry Tibetan-script or Tibetan-title evidence in free-text fields, compute the rate at which the tradition='tibetan' label is actually applied; also search holdout states for records that lack the label but match Tibetan paleographic or title patterns. Measure labeling completeness.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If labeling completeness is substantially higher in the training mega-institution than in holdout institutions (producing an artificial volume gap), this favors the rival; if labeling rates are comparable and the volume difference tracks independently verified Tibetan holdings, this favors the proposed real-diaspora mechanism."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
