---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-09
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: "Both rivals target the survival/publication layer, both need external corpora (not computable on held data) — likely LIVE pair; interpretation-of-plurality claims are exactly where V1 predicts the memorised-vs-held distinction bites least."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "Stone epitaphs and votive monuments survive and are recovered at far higher rates than other genres (painted, wooden, or temporary texts), so they dominate the archaeological record and therefore EDH regardless of whether they dominated actual ancient inscriptional practice.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Differential survival would produce epitaph or votive as the plurality genre in the great majority of provinces (91.7% training, 100% holdout) simply because those are the categories most likely to reach the modern catalogue; the single training exception and the exclusion of Rome remain consistent with local deviations in survival or recovery.",
"named_confounds": ["survival or preservation bias", "differential recovery rates by monument type", "selection effects in what entered the archaeological record"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Compare EDH genre shares against independent tallies that include non-stone or poorly surviving media (graffiti corpora, wooden-tabula finds, painted inscriptions) for the same provinces where such data exist; measure whether epitaph/votive plurality disappears or weakens once those media are included.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If external corpora that capture less-durable media show substantially lower epitaph/votive shares and more frequent plurality of other genres, this favors the rival (survival bias); if the plurality pattern holds even in those broader counts, this favors the proposed dominance in ancient practice."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "Modern epigraphic cataloguing and publication have historically prioritized funerary and votive monuments; EDH therefore over-represents those genres relative to other types that were less systematically collected or published, producing an artificial plurality in most provinces.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A long-standing collection bias toward epitaphs and votives would yield the observed high rates of plurality (11 of 12 training, all 19 holdout) as a property of what entered the database rather than of Mediterranean-wide ancient practice; the one training exception and the Rome exclusion fit as known deviations in publication emphasis.",
"named_confounds": ["selection effects in what got catalogued", "cataloguing or publication priorities of modern scholarship", "digitization bias toward well-published monument types"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Within provinces that have both EDH coverage and independent, more exhaustive local corpora (for example, regional CIL volumes or recent survey publications), recompute genre plurality using the independent counts and compare the rate at which epitaph/votive remains the plurality genre.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If independent local corpora show epitaph/votive plurality in a substantially lower fraction of provinces than EDH, this favors the rival (modern cataloguing priority); if the plurality rate remains comparably high, this favors the proposed ancient cultural pattern."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
