---
conjecture: r3-b1-21
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 apparent floor may be produced by an asymmetric classification pipeline: records identifiable as Sanskrit/Prakrit/Pali-family material are pooled into one unusually broad umbrella, while competing traditions remain more finely split and difficult cases are left unclassified. A portal-wide routing rule would impose a similar numerator advantage in every state without requiring a genuinely universal substantive floor.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Because the same taxonomy and routing procedure operates across the portal, it would reproduce the above-20% result in both training and held-out states. A coherently classified Tibetan collection could nearly displace the umbrella in the 22.42% state, while extensive unresolved metadata would depress its measured share to 41.10% in the other low state.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "asymmetric taxonomy breadth",
        "portal-wide classification-routing practice",
        "differential missingness in tradition labels"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Draw a stratified random sample of records from every state, blind the portal's tradition label, and independently recode the underlying titles, languages, scripts, and descriptions using a symmetric mutually exclusive taxonomy with comparable granularity for all traditions. Apply sampling weights and recompute each state's umbrella share.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if independent recoding systematically lowers the umbrella share, especially among sparse or generic records, and causes at least one state's corrected share to fall to 20% or below; the stated mechanism instead predicts broad agreement and preservation of the floor."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The floor may be a record-granularity effect: South Asian catalogues may commonly be ingested as many item-, text-, or part-level records, whereas other holdings are represented by fewer aggregate records. A few heavily itemized institutional batches could therefore dominate each state's record count.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A common ingestion and itemization practice would persist unchanged from the training states into all nine held-out states. An exceptionally large Tibetan institutional batch could generate the 22.42% minimum, while a large batch lacking usable tradition metadata could generate the separate 41.10% observation.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "unit-of-count mismatch",
        "tradition-dependent cataloguing granularity",
        "institutional batch dominance",
        "duplicate or part-level records"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Using institution, collection, shelfmark, parent-record, and title metadata, collapse duplicate and part-level entries to estimated unique physical manuscripts or codices, then recompute shares; also repeat after capping each institution's contribution and leaving out the largest ingestion batch in each state.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if the above-20% floor disappears after codex-level collapsing or is highly sensitive to removing or capping one or two institutional batches. A genuinely widespread holdings presence should be substantially less sensitive to those transformations."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "Completion of a portal walk may conceal selective coverage: NAMAMI's recruitment, funding, or digitization network may preferentially include repositories and inventories already rich in the umbrella tradition. The universal floor would then characterize the portal's sampling frame rather than manuscript holdings across each state.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "The same nationwide selection process would operate in both training and held-out states, naturally producing a stable minimum among catalogued records. A selected Tibetan-focused institution could create the low outlier, and poor classification within another selected inventory could create the 41.10% observation without contradicting the coverage mechanism.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "repository-coverage selection",
        "digitization and cataloguing selection",
        "portal completeness mistaken for population coverage",
        "tradition-dependent inclusion probability"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Construct an external census of manuscript repositories and inventory totals for the tested states, record which repositories and collections appear in NAMAMI, estimate inclusion probabilities by repository type and tradition, and recompute state shares using inverse-probability weighting or complete external inventories.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if non-umbrella repositories or holdings are substantially less likely to appear in NAMAMI and coverage-adjusted or census-based shares fall to 20% or below in one or more states. Similar inclusion rates and persistence of the floor after coverage adjustment would favor the stated mechanism."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
