---
conjecture: r3-b1-08
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 underlying NAMAMI portal database records lack any extent or folio-count metadata for holdings in the training and holdout states because contributing institutions uniformly omit physical-extent information from their data feeds, rather than the list-page enumeration schema failing to parse an existing extent column.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the extent field is simply absent from the portal's source data for every state, then any list-page harvest will show 0% population in the 11 training states and the same in the 9 holdout states (after pilot exclusion), matching the observed pattern without requiring a parsing omission.",
      "named_confounds": ["source-institution cataloguing practice", "data-entry completeness in portal database feeds"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Access individual manuscript detail pages or any richer per-record view (or official bulk metadata export) for a stratified sample of records from training and holdout states and inspect whether an extent, folio, or leaf-count field is populated in those detailed records. Measure the populated fraction in detail views versus list harvests.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If extent remains absent even in detail views and official exports, this favors the rival (true data absence); if extent appears in details but was missing from list enumerations, this favors the proposed harvest-parse mechanism."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "A portal-wide technical or policy configuration suppresses or blanks the extent/folio field for all state-faceted list outputs, independent of whether the enumeration schema is designed to parse that field.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Uniform suppression at the portal level applied to every state's list view would force near-0% population of the extent field in both training and holdout states, reproducing the exact pattern while the independently curated comparator (which uses richer records) populates it at 97%.",
      "named_confounds": ["portal software configuration artifact", "administrative data-suppression policy"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Compare the harvested list-page fields against any official NAMAMI API, bulk download, or non-list interface that exposes the same records; compute the extent-populated fraction in those alternative access methods for the same states.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If official alternative interfaces also show near-0% extent population across the same states, this favors the rival (portal-wide suppression); if they show substantially higher fractions, this favors the proposed list-page parsing omission."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
