---
conjecture: r3-b1-05
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 observed text-per-manuscript ratios are primarily cataloguing-depth and data-model artifacts: the Byzantine/Greek source systematically creates a separate contained-text row for every distinct work or section inside a codex, while the Perso-Arabic and English sources more often collapse multiple texts into a single parent record or under-report internal contents, and the Chinese source enforces a strict 1:1 title-to-record mapping by design of its harvester.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Differences in how finely each project chooses to atomize composite manuscripts into child rows would produce exactly the observed ratios (6.53 vs 2.43 vs ~1) without any real difference in historical binding practices; future growth of the same sources under the same cataloguing conventions would preserve the same ratios.",
      "named_confounds": ["cataloguing-depth practice", "unit-of-count or data-model granularity", "harvester construction artifact"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For a sample of parent records that are known physical composites (e.g., via independent codicological descriptions or multi-work titles), count the number of contained-text rows actually created by each source and compare against the number of distinct texts attested in external scholarly catalogues of the same manuscripts; measure the ratio of catalogue rows to externally attested texts.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If the Byzantine source systematically over-splits relative to external counts while the others under-split, producing the observed density gap as a pure cataloguing artifact, this favors the rival; if the row counts closely match external text counts across sources, this favors the proposed real-codicological-difference mechanism."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The density differences reflect selection effects in which manuscripts enter each catalogue: the Byzantine source preferentially includes multi-text miscellanies and anthologies that survive in Greek monastic collections, while the Perso-Arabic and English sources draw more heavily from single-text or sparsely composite volumes, and the Chinese source is restricted to title-level entries by its canon structure.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the catalogues sample different subsets of the physical corpus (multi-text vs single-text heavy), the average contained-text ratios will differ exactly as observed even if average codicological practice within each tradition is similar; continued growth under the same selection criteria would keep the ratios stable.",
      "named_confounds": ["selection effects in what got catalogued", "survival or preservation bias toward multi-text volumes in certain traditions"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Restrict each source to a matched subset of manuscripts that are independently known to be single-work versus multi-work (via external bibliographies or colophon evidence) and recompute the contained-text ratios within those matched subsets; measure whether the cross-source density gap persists inside the matched single-work and multi-work strata.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If the density gap collapses inside matched single-work and multi-work strata (i.e., is driven by differing proportions of multi-text volumes selected), this favors the rival; if Byzantine density remains markedly higher even among confirmed single-work manuscripts, this favors the proposed culture-difference mechanism."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
