---
conjecture: r3-b1-05
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 projects apply different rules and levels of effort when decomposing manuscript descriptions into individual contained texts. The Byzantine catalogue may systematically extract minor, fragmentary, duplicated, or uncertain works that the Perso-Arabic and English projects leave bundled in prose or omit.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "More exhaustive segmentation directly raises contained-text rows per parent without any difference in the physical composition of manuscripts, naturally producing 6.53 versus 2.43 versus 1.01; the Chinese 1.00 ratio is already identified as a construction rule. Because no held-out test has run, there is no additional outcome this rival must explain.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "source-specific cataloguing depth",
        "different text-segmentation rules",
        "harvester extraction coverage",
        "differential treatment of fragments and uncertain attributions"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Draw stratified random samples of parent records from the first three catalogues and have source-blinded cataloguers re-segment their underlying descriptions using one common rule for what constitutes a contained text. Compare harmonized text-per-parent ratios with the existing ratios. This can use the same catalogues if their descriptions or folio-level contents are retained.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The cross-source disparity shrinks substantially under common segmentation, and the original excess in the Byzantine source consists disproportionately of row types that the other projects do not separately encode."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The sources use different denominator units: a Byzantine parent record may usually represent an entire physical codex, whereas another catalogue may create separate parent records for codicological units, volumes, parts, or reconstructed witnesses within the same physical object. The ratio would then differ because parent records are not comparable units.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Holding the actual number of texts in physical objects constant, consolidating all parts under one parent inflates texts per parent, while splitting an object into several parents lowers it toward one. This could generate the observed ordering independently of manuscript culture, while the exact Chinese 1:1 remains a separate row-construction artifact; there is no held-out result to constrain the rival.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "non-equivalent parent-record units",
        "physical-volume versus codicological-unit counting",
        "split or merged catalogue records",
        "denominator construction"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Use shelfmarks, volume identifiers, repository identifiers, and part relationships to reconstruct comparable physical-object clusters in each source, then recompute contained texts per reconstructed physical object. Also measure how many parent records map to each shelfmarked object.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Sources show markedly different parent-records-per-physical-object rates, and the 6.53, 2.43, and 1.01 ratios converge materially after normalization to the same physical-object denominator."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The catalogues may cover compositionally different samples rather than representative manuscripts from their respective cultures: the Byzantine project may preferentially include surviving or selected composite codices, while the English lost-book evidence and Perso-Arabic catalogue may disproportionately represent single-work witnesses. The observed ordering would reflect collection scope and survival or observability, not tradition-wide binding practice.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A source specializing in well-preserved institutional codices or manuscripts with richly identifiable contents will have many more contained-text rows per parent than a source assembled from loss notices, citations, fragmentary witnesses, or single-title records. Such selection can reproduce all three non-structural ratios, while the Chinese 1:1 remains explained by construction; no held-out test has yet supplied contrary evidence.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "catalogue inclusion criteria",
        "survival and preservation bias",
        "repository and collection selection",
        "genre and period composition",
        "differential observability of lost or fragmentary manuscripts"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Construct a new, source-independent probability sample or census of physical manuscripts from matched periods, genres, repository types, and preservation states across the traditions, and catalogue every object under one protocol. Compare its tradition-specific text-per-object ratios with those reported here.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The large Byzantine advantage disappears or is substantially reduced in the matched, uniformly catalogued sample, while density remains strongly associated with repository type, preservation state, genre, or original source-inclusion criteria."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": "The first two rivals are especially important because the statistic is a ratio of two database constructs whose definitions may vary by source. The absence of a held-out test means none of the mechanisms has yet faced an out-of-sample constraint."
}
