# QUINCUNX — EDR Frozen Test Bundle v1

**STATUS: DRAFT. NOT FROZEN. NOT COUNTERSIGNED.** This document is authored per
`docs/DECISION_EDR_SPEND_20260809.md`'s "Frozen BEFORE the dump is opened" list. It is a
registrable draft, not a registration: the orchestrator reviews, amends, and countersigns
before the EDR archive is opened. Nothing in this document should be read as VERIFIED or
FROZEN merely because it appears here. Every number the author (not the orchestrator)
selected, rather than transcribed from a governing document, is marked **PROPOSED** so the
countersignature can see every discretionary point at a glance.

**Access discipline honoured while drafting.** No EDR record, file content, or search
result was fetched, downloaded, or parsed. The single external access was the Zenodo
metadata API for deposit `10.5281/zenodo.18468635` (`https://zenodo.org/api/records/18468635`),
read once, 2026-08-09, for file names/sizes/checksums only (§1.1). EDH and EDB —
already-ingested, already-spent corpora — were read via read-only aggregate SQL against
the live project database. No git command was run; the commit recorded in §1.4 is
transcribed from the environment-provided repository snapshot at session start, not
independently re-verified here (see that section for the caveat).

**Governing documents** (transcribed faithfully wherever they already decided something;
re-decision flagged PROPOSED where they left a number open):
1. `docs/DECISION_EDR_SPEND_20260809.md` — the registered decision and binding order of
   operations.
2. `docs/generated/quincunx_edr_consult_20260809.md` — full specification detail.
3. `docs/generated/quincunx_rival_dischargeability_20260809.md` — the roster this bundle's
   test registry is drawn from.

---

## 1. Corpus identities

### 1.1 EDR — DOI, version, files, checksums (Zenodo metadata API only; archive untouched)

Read once, 2026-08-09, from `https://zenodo.org/api/records/18468635`:

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| DOI | `10.5281/zenodo.18468635` |
| Concept DOI (all-versions) | `10.5281/zenodo.3931222` |
| Version | 12 |
| Last modified | 2026-02-03T12:16:29.455693+00:00 |
| License (Zenodo deposit metadata) | CC BY 4.0 (`license.id="cc-by-4.0"`) |
| Description (verbatim) | "This dataset is the result of an automatic conversion of **some contents** of EDR into EpiDoc." (emphasis in original; "some", not "all" — carried forward from `docs/generated/tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` §C as an unresolved scope question, not re-litigated here) |
| Creators | Silvio Panciera (Sapienza), Giuseppe Camodeca (L'Orientale Naples), Giovanni A. Cecconi (Firenze), Silvia Orlandi (Sapienza), Lanfranco Fabriani (Sapienza), Silvia Evangelisti (Foggia) |

**Files (complete array):**

| Filename | Size (bytes) | Checksum | File ID |
|---|---:|---|---|
| `EDR.zip` | 267,683,094 | `md5:d679b73ce95537406b84468cac64753c` | `0f25a4cb-967b-4e19-967e-d128efb08f84` |

Single file, matches the size already recorded in `tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md`
§C (267,683,094 bytes) from an earlier read of the same API — consistent, and this session
additionally recorded the MD5 checksum, which the earlier document did not capture.
**This MD5 is the value the download step (permitted: "download + checksum verification")
must reproduce before any parsing.**

**Disclosed license conflict (transcribed, not re-decided):** EDR's own website states CC
BY-NC-SA 4.0 in its footer (`tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` §E), more restrictive
than the Zenodo deposit's CC BY 4.0. Per the operative-basis convention this project already
applied to EDB (`EDB_LICENSE_ZENODO` in `apps/scriptome/services/edb_census.py`), the
Zenodo deposit's own file-level license is the operative basis for ingest; the website
statement is disclosed, not superseded, and per Decision correction #2, "no record payloads
are redistributed until the conflict is resolved."

**Documentation-page corpus facts already on record** (from `tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md`
§B, a prior read of EDR's own public "State of the Art" status page — cited here, not
re-fetched): declared total 120,309 inscriptions (108,458 EDR-original + 11,851 "originally
stored by ... EDH", 9.85%); 15 named regiones with counts (Aemilia 1,634 · Apulia et
Calabria 4,803 · Bruttii et Lucania 1,327 · Etruria 5,793 · Latium et Campania 27,090 ·
Liguria 1,306 · Picenum 1,760 · Regio incerta 685 · Roma 48,110 · Sabina et Samnium 5,240 ·
Sardinia 1,665 · Sicilia 3,393 · Transpadana 2,986 · Umbria 4,330 · Venetia et Histria
10,183; sums to 120,305, a disclosed 4-record/0.003% gap against the declared 120,309).
**EDR's documented regional grain is Roman ITALY — the 11 Augustan regiones plus Roma
broken out, Sicilia, Sardinia, and a "Regio incerta" catch-all — not the full empire.** This
fact is load-bearing for §2's population definitions and is flagged there.

### 1.2 EDH — exact snapshot definition (live DB, read-only aggregate SQL)

Source: `scriptome_cataloguesource` id 68, slug `edh`, both halves ingested — registration
slice 2026-08-05 (`docs/generated/edh_registration_slice_ingest_20260805.md`) and holdout
slice 2026-08-06 under commit `f9f204a58fc35a76b1c4204f2d2decb8f3dc9629`
(`EDH_HOLDOUT_UNLOCK_COMMIT` in `apps/scriptome/services/edh_census.py`). License: CC
BY-SA 4.0. Content frozen at source since February 2021 (EDH's own funding-end date).

```sql
SELECT COUNT(*) AS n,
       md5(string_agg(external_id, ',' ORDER BY external_id)) AS fingerprint
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
WHERE source_id = (SELECT id FROM scriptome_cataloguesource WHERE slug='edh');
```

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Row count | **81,855** |
| Fingerprint (md5 of `,`-joined, ascending-sorted `external_id`) | **`03fe070983db026095f059e5f97ebd44`** |
| Distinct province codes present | 63 of 66 named in `EDH_REGISTRATION_SLICE_PROVINCES` ∪ `EDH_HOLDOUT_PROVINCES` (3 unrepresented codes, incl. confirmed-empty `Val`/Valeria — not independently re-verified against EDH's live per-province API in this session; out of scope, no EDH network access attempted here) |
| TM (Trismegistos) coverage | 76,835/81,855 = **93.8672%** (`raw->>'trismegistos_uri' IS NOT NULL AND <> ''`) — reproduces the roster's cited 93.87% fresh |
| External-id integrity | 0 blank, 0 duplicate within source (unique constraint `(source_id, external_id)` holds) |

Duplicate-external-id and blank-id checks were run and returned zero in both cases,
confirming the fingerprint query above is not silently masking a data-quality problem.

### 1.3 EDB — exact snapshot definition (live DB, read-only aggregate SQL)

Source: `scriptome_cataloguesource` id 69, slug `edb`. Zenodo DOI `10.5281/zenodo.3575485`
(concept DOI `10.5281/zenodo.3575484`), `EDB.zip`, 73,795,003 bytes, MD5
`0f2144b9838f7c60b7ee3588531ed9d0` — all three transcribed from `EDB_ZENODO_DOI` /
`EDB_ZIP_SIZE_BYTES` / `EDB_ZIP_MD5` in `apps/scriptome/services/edb_census.py`, downloaded
and byte-verified 2026-08-09 per that module's own docstring; not re-fetched from Zenodo in
this session since it was not required (EDB's identity is defined by the already-verified
local snapshot, per the task brief).

```sql
SELECT COUNT(*) AS n,
       md5(string_agg(external_id, ',' ORDER BY external_id)) AS fingerprint
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
WHERE source_id = (SELECT id FROM scriptome_cataloguesource WHERE slug='edb');
```

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Row count | **40,760** (matches `EDB_EXPECTED_RECORD_COUNT`, the ingest's own post-write assertion) |
| Fingerprint (same method as EDH) | **`28e13121c66a2b6d87757c84f8a5e5e9`** |
| TM (Trismegistos) coverage | 39,984/40,760 = **98.0962%** (`raw->>'tm_id' IS NOT NULL AND <> ''`) — reproduces the roster's cited 98.09% fresh |
| External-id integrity | 0 blank, 0 duplicate within source |

### 1.4 Git commit of this draft's sources

**Caveat, stated once:** this task's constraints forbid running git commands. The commit
below is transcribed from the `gitStatus` snapshot the environment provided at the start of
this authoring session, not independently re-verified with `git log`/`git rev-parse` here.
The orchestrator should re-derive this with an actual git command before countersigning, in
case commits landed on `main` between session start and countersignature.

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Branch | `main` |
| HEAD commit (per session-start snapshot) | `4aa90b3` — "Dischargeability roster vs EDB + tranche-4 erratum" |
| Working tree at session start | untracked files present (unrelated media/data files, e.g. `Bodleian+Liberary.stl`, `sfardata.xlsx`; none of the three governing documents or the scriptome DB tables were reported modified) |

---

## 2. The test registry

### 2.0 How this registry was assembled, and one load-bearing scope finding

The task brief names eight conjectures as the candidate source
(`r2-edh-b1` **-02, -03, -06, -09, -11, -12, -14, -18**) — every rival the dischargeability
roster (`quincunx_rival_dischargeability_20260809.md`) verdicted `PARTIALLY` against EDB, or
named in that document's Part D as something EDR/EDCS's multi-province breadth would help,
**excluding** rivals that are (a) self-contained recomputes on EDH's own held fields (need
no acquired corpus at all), (b) in need of a structurally different kind of data
(demographic/GIS/military-unit-station/human-relabeling), since no epigraphic acquisition
fixes those, or (c) `r2-edh-b1-13` (the Jireček-line flagship), which the decision doc
registers separately as the Rome triangulation (§6), not as an ordinary registry entry.
**14 rivals** across the 8 named conjectures met this bar — inside the roster's own "15–18"
approximate framing, not equal to its upper bound; §2.9 reconciles the count and names what
was excluded and why, so the gap is visible rather than silently rounded up.

Every `discriminating_test` string below was re-verified against the **primary rival
archive file** (`docs/generated/popper_rivals/r2-edh-b1/{codex,grok}/<id>.md`), not merely
copied from the roster's own transcription, except where noted — the roster's transcription
was itself already checked against primary files under its own stated "verbatim discipline"
rule, so both layers agree. One rival (`12-grok-r1`) had no verbatim quote in the roster at
all (it was described only as "same mechanism as 11-grok-r1"); its test text below was
pulled fresh from its own primary file.

**Load-bearing scope finding, stated once here rather than 14 times below: EDR is
multi-province but not empire-wide.** Its documented regional grain (§1.1) is 15 units, all
within Roman **Italy** (the 11 Augustan regiones, Roma broken out, Sicilia, Sardinia, a
catch-all). Several registered rivals name provinces or "every province" scope that EDR
cannot reach at all (e.g. Raetia/Noricum — outside Italy — for -11/-12; the full 21-West/
6-East scope for -13, handled separately in §6). This is the single most consequential
operationalization fact in this bundle and is called out per-entry below via the **EDH↔EDR
province crosswalk** (§2.1) and, where it forces a scope reduction or a mechanical park, in
each entry's own Population/Minimum-data-rule fields.

### 2.1 Shared machinery

**EDH-province ↔ EDR-regione crosswalk — PROPOSED, BINDS-AT-STAGING for mechanical
confirmation against EDR's actual per-record region field.** Built from EDH's own published
province vocabulary (`EDH_REGISTRATION_SLICE_PROVINCES`/`EDH_HOLDOUT_PROVINCES` in
`edh_census.py`) matched by name against EDR's own documented 15-regione list (§1.1). This
is a *name correspondence proposed now*; staging must confirm it mechanically against
EDR's real per-record region labels (a permitted structural diagnostic, §7) before any test
uses it, blind to every rival's expected result.

| EDH code | EDH name | EDR regione | EDH row count (live, §1.2 method) |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Rom | Roma | Roma | 4,393 |
| LaC | Latium et Campania (Regio I) | Latium et Campania | 2,598 |
| VeH | Venetia et Histria (Regio X) | Venetia et Histria | 1,155 |
| ApC | Apulia et Calabria (Regio II) | Apulia et Calabria | 761 |
| Etr | Etruria (Regio VII) | Etruria | 651 |
| Sam | Samnium (Regio IV) | Sabina et Samnium *(many-to-one: EDR's regione combines Sabina+Samnium; EDH splits Samnium alone — disclosed, not silently assumed 1:1)* | 649 |
| Umb | Umbria (Regio VI) | Umbria | 348 |
| BrL | Bruttium et Lucania (Regio III) | Bruttii et Lucania | 246 |
| Sar | Sardinia | Sardinia | 228 |
| Aem | Aemilia (Regio VIII) | Aemilia | 211 |
| Sic | Sicilia, Melita | Sicilia | 193 |
| Pic | Picenum (Regio V) | Picenum | 171 |
| Tra | Transpadana (Regio XI) | Transpadana | 165 |
| Lig | Liguria (Regio IX) | Liguria | 145 |
| **Total, 14 matched provinces** | | | **11,914** (14.6% of EDH's 81,855) |

**Explicitly NOT mapped** (disclosed, not silently dropped): `Val` (Valeria) — a Pannonian,
not Italian, province; an initial drafting error briefly treated it as a crosswalk candidate,
caught and corrected before this table was finalized; it has 0 EDH rows regardless, so the
correction changes nothing numerically. `Inc` (EDH's own "Provincia incerta", 389 rows) —
structurally analogous to EDR's "Regio incerta" (both are each corpus's *own* internal
unknown-assignment bucket) but **not a substantive place-match**; treating them as linked
would silently compare two different populations. Both stay outside the crosswalk.

Context from EDH's own held data (informative only, not outcome-facing for EDR since no EDR
number is involved): applying the *base conjecture's own* registered floors (<300 / ≥1,000)
to just these 14 provinces already gives a heavy-tailed shape (7 provinces <300, 3 at
≥1,000, 4 in between) — useful for judging whether the -03 minimum-data rule (below) is
plausible, not a preview of any EDR-side result.

**Test-pattern templates** (defined once, referenced by ID per entry to avoid repeating
identical machinery 14 times):

- **Template P — province/region-count comparison** (used by 02-codex-r2, 02-grok-r2,
  03-grok-r2). Population: the 14 crosswalk-matched provinces. Transform: coverage ratio
  ρ_p = EDR_count_p / EDH_count_p per matched province, log-transformed for the cross-province
  comparison (skew-robustness — PROPOSED, standard for count-ratio data spanning orders of
  magnitude, e.g. Roma at 48,110/4,393 vs Liguria at 1,306/145). Minimum-data rule:
  **PROPOSED — ≥8 of the 14 matched provinces must each carry ≥30 EDR records**, else parks.
  Justification: 8/14 is a bare majority of the crosswalk (ensures the partial comparison
  isn't built on a token handful of provinces); 30 is far below every one of EDR's 15
  documented regione counts (smallest, Regio incerta, is 685; smallest *matched* regione,
  Liguria, is 1,306), so the rule is not expected to bind on the EDR side — the real
  constraint is scope (14/66 ≈ 21% of EDH's province list), disclosed explicitly, not sample
  size. Sensitivity: leave-Roma-out (Roma is ~4× the next-largest matched province in both
  corpora; a robustness check excluding it shows whether any verdict is Roma-driven alone).
  **Scope disclosure required in every Template-P verdict**: the rival's own test text asks
  about "every province"/"the same provinces" without qualification; this bundle can only
  answer for the Italian subset, so a FAVORS or REFUTES verdict under Template P is reported
  as **PARTIALLY**, mirroring the roster's own EDB-verdict vocabulary, never as a full
  discharge of the rival's literal scope.

- **Template G — genre/facet-rate comparison within matched provinces** (used by
  06-codex-r3, 09-grok-r2, 14-codex-r2, 18-codex-r2, 18-grok-r2). Population: the 14
  crosswalk-matched provinces, restricted to whatever facet the specific test needs
  (dated records, genre-typed records, bracket/lacuna-markable records). Minimum-data rule:
  **PROPOSED — ≥50 EDR records in the matched, facet-restricted population**, higher than
  Template P's per-region 30 because these are within-facet subsets expected to be sparser.
  Sensitivity: leave-Roma-out (same rationale as Template P).

- **Template M — frontier-province object-type presence** (used by 11-grok-r1, 12-codex-r1,
  12-grok-r1). Population: EDR records whose region label equals the rival's own named
  target province (Raetia, Noricum). Minimum-data rule: **PROPOSED — the region label must
  appear at all in EDR's blind-staging region-label inventory (§7, permitted) AND carry ≥10
  records of the named object type** (instrumentum domesticum / military diploma) for the
  test to run even in a weakened form. **Registered now, not asserted as already
  determined**: Raetia and Noricum are trans-Alpine/Danubian provinces, outside EDR's
  documented 15-regione Italian scope (§1.1). Absent a surprise at the region-label-inventory
  step, this minimum-data rule will not be met and these three tests mechanically park. If
  the region label does unexpectedly appear, the achievable estimand is a same-genre
  content-presence check only (does EDR carry more of the named object type there than
  EDB's near-zero baseline), explicitly **not** the unit-station/archaeological-report
  linkage each rival's own test literally asks for — that remains out of reach of any
  epigraphic acquisition, matching Part D of the roster.

**Multiplicity — PROPOSED.** Family = per base conjecture (each conjecture's own set of
registered EDR-facing rivals below is one family: sizes 2/1/1/3/1/2/1/3 for
-02/-03/-06/-09/-11/-12/-14/-18). Correction: Holm-Bonferroni step-down within each family
at family-wise α=0.05. Justification: the unit that actually changes status on a rival's
result is the *conjecture's own Grade*, so false-positive control is scoped there, not
across unrelated conjectures; Holm is uniformly more powerful than plain Bonferroni while
still controlling family-wise error, which matters because a single spuriously-significant
rival result flipping a conjecture's status is a bigger integrity risk here than mild
conservatism. The Rome triangulation (§6) is a separate family with its own correction
(§6.9), consistent with the decision doc registering it as a distinct, single triangulation
family rather than folding it into this registry. **Secondary, non-gating check — PROPOSED**:
across all 14 registry verdicts plus the Rome triangulation's decision-pattern calls (up to
20 decision points total), report a Benjamini-Hochberg FDR flag at q=0.10 as a disclosed
advisory alongside the results — it does not override any individual per-family verdict, it
only tells the countersignatory whether more "favors" calls turned up bundle-wide than the
false-discovery rate would predict by chance.

### 2.2 r2-edh-b1-02 — No single province holds ≥30% (2 rivals)

*Base conjecture's own registered figures: training-half max 18.20%, holdout-half max
11.87%, ceiling 30%.*

**02-codex-r2.** Mechanism: EDH's editorial workflow may have prioritized geographic
breadth while incompletely ingesting the largest provincial corpora.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "For every province, compare EDH counts with
> independent, substantially complete provincial inventories or publication censuses,
> estimate province-specific EDH inclusion rates, and recompute shares using
> inverse-coverage weights."

- **Template:** P. **Population:** the 14 crosswalk-matched provinces (PARTIAL vs. the
  test's own "every province").
- **Estimand/direction:** inverse-coverage-reweighted EDH share per matched province, and
  Spearman correlation of EDR-regione size against coverage ratio ρ_p.
- **Fields:** EDH province code (held) × EDR per-record region label (BINDS-AT-STAGING,
  crosswalk §2.1) × per-province record counts in both corpora.
- **Minimum-data rule:** Template P default (≥8/14 matched provinces, ≥30 EDR records each).
- **Missingness policy:** unmatched (52/66) EDH provinces excluded from this test's
  population, disclosed as a scope reduction, not silently treated as satisfying the
  rival's literal "every province" wording.
- **Transformations:** log coverage ratio (Template P).
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out (Template P).
- **Multiplicity:** family `-02` (2 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED, anchored to the rival's own `what_result_favors_rival`**
  ("A strong negative relationship between corpus size and EDH inclusion rate, with
  completeness-adjusted counts placing at least one province above 30%, would favor the
  differential-completeness mechanism"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY)** if Spearman ρ ≤ −0.5 between
  EDR-regione size and coverage ratio AND at least one matched province's reweighted EDH
  share exceeds 30%. **REFUTES (within scope)** if neither condition holds. **PARKS** if
  <8/14 matched provinces meet the minimum-data rule.

**02-grok-r2.** Mechanism: EDH's own multi-contributor cataloguing strategy structurally
prevents dominance (a database-construction artifact).
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "Compare EDH province shares against independent
> tallies of published Roman inscriptions (for example, from national corpora, CIL volumes,
> or other epigraphic databases) for the same provinces; measure whether EDH
> under-represents the largest provinces relative to those external counts."

- **Template:** P (same population/rule/transform/sensitivity as 02-codex-r2 — the two
  share a population by construction, which is expected and fine within one family).
- **Estimand/direction:** per matched province, EDR-derived share of the matched-province
  total vs. EDH's own share of the same total.
- **Fields/minimum-data/missingness/transform/sensitivity:** as Template P above.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-02` (2 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, from `what_result_favors_rival` ("If external counts
  show one or more provinces exceeding 30% of the corresponding half while EDH keeps them
  lower, this favors the rival ... if the external shares are similarly bounded, this
  favors the proposed real bound"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY)** if any matched province's
  EDR-derived share exceeds 30% while EDH's own share for that province stays <30%.
  **REFUTES (within scope)** if EDR's matched-province shares all stay <30% too. **PARKS**
  under the shared Template-P rule.

### 2.3 r2-edh-b1-03 — Heavy-tailed province-size shape (1 rival)

*Registered floors: ≥12/32 provinces <300 records AND ≥5/32 ≥1,000, in each alphabetical
half (training 18/9, holdout 12/15 against floors 12/5).*

**03-grok-r2.** Mechanism: the observed small/large split is produced by EDH's own
long-term cataloguing coverage, not a general recovery-unevenness process.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "Compare the EDH province-size distribution against
> independent tallies of published Roman inscriptions for the same provinces (national
> corpora, CIL, other epigraphic databases). Measure whether the external distributions
> show a markedly different number of provinces under 300 and at or above 1,000."

- **Template:** P. **Population:** 14 matched provinces (PARTIAL vs. "the same provinces"
  read as the full 32/65-province holdout scope).
- **Estimand/direction:** classify each matched province by EDR's own count against the
  base conjecture's own floors (<300 / ≥1,000); compare the resulting small/large split
  (within the 14) to EDH's own split for the same 14 (already computed, §2.1: 7 small / 3
  large / 4 mid, from EDH's held data alone).
- **Fields:** as Template P.
- **Minimum-data rule:** Template P default.
- **Missingness:** same disclosed scope reduction as §2.2.
- **Transformations:** categorical (<300 / 300–999 / ≥1,000), no log transform needed here.
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-03` (1 member) — trivial, no correction needed.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, from `what_result_favors_rival` ("substantially fewer
  small provinces or a different balance ... favors the rival; ... closely match[ing] ...
  favors the proposed general unevenness-of-recovery mechanism"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY)** if
  the EDR-based small/large split among the 14 differs from EDH's own 7/3 split by >2
  provinces in either category. **REFUTES (within scope)** if within 1 province. Exactly 2
  → indeterminate, reported as mixed (no verdict forced). **PARKS** if <8/14 meet minimum-data.

### 2.4 r2-edh-b1-06 — Exact-precision dating ≤40% ceiling, every province (1 rival)

**06-codex-r3.** Mechanism: EDH's source/publication coverage disproportionately includes
broadly-dated funerary/votive/fragmentary material while underharvesting administrative or
specialist corpora rich in explicit annual dating.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "For several provinces, construct an independently
> exhaustive inventory from regional and specialist corpora, reconcile duplicate objects,
> and compare exact-year proportions by genre and overall with the EDH subset."

- **Template:** G. **Population:** 14 matched provinces, restricted to dated records
  (`date_precision` resolves to a single year under the same rule EDH/EDB already use).
- **Estimand/direction:** EDR's own exact-date rate per matched province, and by genre if
  an EDR genre-equivalent field exists (BINDS-AT-STAGING).
- **Fields:** EDR date-bounds field(s) (abstractly: notBefore/notAfter-equivalent,
  BINDS-AT-STAGING to EDR's actual EpiDoc `origDate`-equivalent attributes — EDB's own
  `notBefore-custom`/`notAfter-custom` is the nearest *documented* EpiDoc precedent, not a
  guarantee EDR uses identical attribute names) × EDR genre/object-type field
  (BINDS-AT-STAGING).
- **Minimum-data rule:** Template G default (≥50 dated EDR records in the matched
  population).
- **Missingness:** matched-province scope disclosure (as §2.2); EDR records with
  unresolvable date fields excluded from the exact-date-rate denominator, exclusion rate
  disclosed.
- **Transformations:** proportion comparison (EDR exact-date rate vs. EDH's own, per
  matched province).
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out.
- **Context, not a discharge:** EDB's own exact-date rate is 5.93% overall (§1.3-derived,
  already on record in the roster's §E.3) — far below the 40% ceiling; if EDR's
  documentation-conversion process resembles EDB's, a similarly low rate is plausible, but
  this is an open question left to staging, not prejudged here.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-06` (1 member) — trivial.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, from `what_result_favors_rival` ("Exact-date-rich
  genres have significantly lower EDH inclusion rates, and at least one reconciled
  exhaustive provincial corpus exceeds 40% ... would favor the rival"): **FAVORS
  (PARTIALLY)** if EDR's exact-date rate exceeds 40% in ≥1 matched province where EDH's own
  rate for that province stays <40%. **REFUTES (within scope)** if no matched province's
  EDR-derived rate exceeds 40%. **PARKS** if <50 dated EDR records in the matched
  population.

### 2.5 r2-edh-b1-09 — Epitaph/votive plurality ≥85% of eligible provinces (3 rivals)

**09-codex-r3.** Mechanism: funerary monuments are durable/archaeologically conspicuous;
non-funerary texts on perishable supports are lost.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "Construct prospectively defined archaeological
> inventories of all inscribed finds from sampled settlement, sanctuary, roadside,
> industrial, and burial contexts, recording excavation or survey effort, original
> context, material, completeness, and reuse. Compare effort-weighted genre distributions
> across contexts and materials with the EDH record-weighted distributions."

- **MECHANICAL PARK — registered now, not deferred to staging.** This test's own text
  requires a *prospective, effort-weighted, total-recovery archaeological survey*. EDR, like
  EDB, is a curated **catalogue** of already-known, already-published material — the exact
  same structural limitation the roster itself already found for EDB on this rival ("EDB is
  itself a curated selection of already-known catacomb material ... not a prospective
  total-recovery survey ... it inherits the identical survival/publication-selection problem
  this rival is worried about, rather than resolving it"). Multi-province breadth does not
  change the *kind* of instrument EDR is. No minimum-data rule is defined because no field
  mapping could satisfy this test's population requirement regardless of what EDR's export
  turns out to contain. This is one of the entries flagged in the final report as resisting
  operationalization.

**09-grok-r1.** Mechanism: stone epitaphs/votives survive and are recovered at far higher
rates than perishable/non-stone media.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "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."

- **Template:** G, with an added pre-condition. **Population:** 14 matched provinces,
  restricted to records classified as non-stone/perishable medium (BINDS-AT-STAGING: EDR's
  `material`-equivalent field's value inventory, a permitted structural presence/inventory
  check, §7).
- **Flagged, not prejudged:** EDR's own documented general remit (EAGLE portal: "the whole
  epigraphy of Rome and the Italian peninsula... except Christian inscriptions") describes
  the same durable-media-biased standard epigraphic remit as EDH itself, not a
  graffiti/wooden-tablet specialist corpus — this makes the test **likely**, on current
  documentation, to face the same structural gap EDB faced, but this is not asserted as
  certain; it is resolved by the material-field value inventory at staging.
- **Estimand/direction:** epitaph/votive share computed with vs. without non-stone media
  included, per matched province.
- **Fields:** EDR material/medium field (BINDS-AT-STAGING) × EDR genre field
  (BINDS-AT-STAGING).
- **Minimum-data rule:** **PROPOSED — ≥50 EDR records classified as non-stone/perishable
  medium, overall (not per-province, given expected sparsity)**; else parks.
- **Missingness:** matched-province scope disclosure.
- **Transformations:** proportion comparison, with/without non-stone inclusion.
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-09` (3 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, from `what_result_favors_rival` ("substantially lower
  epitaph/votive shares and more frequent plurality of other genres ... favors the rival; if
  the plurality pattern holds even in those broader counts, this favors the proposed
  dominance in ancient practice"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY)** if including non-stone media drops
  epitaph/votive plurality below 85% in a majority of matched provinces with adequate data.
  **REFUTES (within scope)** if plurality holds ≥85% regardless. **PARKS** if <50 non-stone
  EDR records overall.

**09-grok-r2.** Mechanism: modern epigraphic cataloguing/publication historically
prioritized funerary/votive monuments for collection.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "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."

- **Template:** G. **Population:** 14 matched provinces, genre-typed EDR records
  (BINDS-AT-STAGING for EDR's genre-equivalent field — EDB's own `keywords/term` `genre`
  field, §1.3, is the nearest documented EpiDoc precedent).
- **Estimand/direction:** fraction of matched provinces where funerary-or-votive is the
  EDR-derived plurality genre.
- **Minimum-data rule:** Template G default (≥50 genre-typed EDR records in the matched
  population, PLUS each contributing province individually needs enough genre-typed records
  to assign a plurality — **PROPOSED sub-rule: ≥20 genre-typed records per contributing
  province**, else that province is excluded from the plurality-rate denominator, disclosed).
- **Missingness:** matched-province scope disclosure; genre-blank EDR records excluded from
  the per-province plurality determination.
- **Transformations:** plurality-rate proportion.
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-09` (3 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, from `what_result_favors_rival` ("substantially lower
  fraction of provinces ... favors the rival; if the plurality rate remains comparably high,
  this favors the proposed ancient cultural pattern"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY)** if the
  EDR-derived plurality-province fraction is ≤70% (PROPOSED: 15 percentage points below
  EDH's own ~85%+ registered rate, read as "substantially lower"). **REFUTES (within
  scope)** if ≥80% (within 5pp of EDH's own ceiling, read as "comparably high"). 70–80% →
  indeterminate, reported as mixed. **PARKS** under the Template G default.

### 2.6 r2-edh-b1-11 / r2-edh-b1-12 — Frontier instrumentum domesticum / diploma presence (3 rivals)

*Registered floor: instrumentum share ≥10% (training Rhine provinces, holdout one of two
upper-Danube provinces at 17.28%, -11); diploma count ≥3 (training four concentrations,
holdout two named upper-Danube/eastern-Alpine provinces at 45 and 16, -12). Both name
Raetia/Noricum specifically.*

**11-grok-r1.** Mechanism: high instrumentum shares reflect modern recovery/cataloguing
intensity, not ancient legionary-frontier production concentration.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "Compare EDH instrumentum shares against independent
> tallies of stamped bricks/tiles/pipes from regional archaeological reports or museum
> inventories for the same provinces; measure whether high EDH shares correspond to
> provinces with known intensive modern recording of instrumentum rather than to
> military-frontier status."

- **Template:** M. **Population:** EDR records region-labeled Raetia or Noricum.
- **Fields:** EDR region label (BINDS-AT-STAGING) × EDR object-type field for
  instrumentum-domesticum-equivalent classification (BINDS-AT-STAGING).
- **Minimum-data rule / mechanical park:** Template M default — region label must exist in
  EDR's blind region-label inventory (§7) AND carry ≥10 instrumentum-type records. **Per
  §1.1's documented 15-regione Italian scope, Raetia and Noricum are not among EDR's named
  regiones; this test is registered as LIKELY TO PARK, pending the actual (permitted)
  region-label check, not asserted as parked outright.**
- **Missingness:** N/A if parked; if not parked, EDR records with unresolvable object-type
  excluded from the count, disclosed.
- **Transformations:** none beyond the raw content-presence count, if the fallback branch
  runs.
- **Sensitivity:** N/A (single-region test, no leave-one-out).
- **Multiplicity:** family `-11` (1 member) — trivial.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED, fallback branch only** (Template M's own text): if not
  parked, achievable estimand is a same-genre content-presence check, never the literal
  archaeological-report/modern-recording-intensity comparison the test asks for; ceiling
  verdict is **PARTIALLY** at most, matching Part D's own finding that "neither EDB nor
  EDR/EDCS supply military archaeological-report data."

**12-codex-r1.** Mechanism: diplomas are portable; may concentrate at veteran-settlement/
retirement zones rather than active-garrison provinces.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "For each diploma, link its dated issuing unit and
> recipient, where recoverable, to a chronological unit-station dataset and classify its
> findspot as fort-associated or civilian/retirement settlement."

- **Template:** M. Same population/rule/park-likelihood as 11-grok-r1.
- **Additional structural note:** this test's *full* form needs a Roman-military
  unit-station dataset — a fundamentally non-epigraphic instrument no acquisition of another
  inscription corpus (EDR or EDCS) supplies; even in the non-parked branch, only the
  weakened same-genre presence check (diploma-type record counts in Raetia/Noricum) is
  achievable, never the unit-station linkage itself. Registered as a standing limitation,
  not deferred.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-12` (2 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED, fallback branch only:** ceiling **PARTIALLY**, same
  reasoning as 11-grok-r1.

**12-grok-r1.** Mechanism: high raw diploma counts reflect modern recovery/publication/
museum-collection intensity in provinces that have been the focus of military archaeology,
not ancient concentration on garrisoned frontiers. *(Verbatim test pulled from the primary
file directly — the roster did not quote it, describing it only as "same as 11-grok-r1's
mechanism, applied to diplomas.")*
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "Compare EDH diploma counts against independent
> tallies from regional archaeological reports, museum catalogues, or the CIL for the same
> provinces; measure whether high EDH counts correspond more closely to known intensive
> modern military-excavation programs than to frontier status alone."

- **Template:** M. Same population/rule/park-likelihood as 11-grok-r1/12-codex-r1.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-12` (2 members), Holm-Bonferroni (paired with 12-codex-r1).
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED, fallback branch only:** ceiling **PARTIALLY**, same
  reasoning.

### 2.7 r2-edh-b1-14 — Epigraphic-habit peak in 1st/2nd century AD (1 rival)

*Registered claim: every eligible province's inscription-count century peak falls in the
1st or 2nd c. AD.*

**14-codex-r2.** Mechanism: catalogue-entry filter — EDH and its source publications
disproportionately include well-studied high-imperial Latin lapidary/public/funerary
epigraphy, omitting larger shares of earlier, later, fragmentary, non-Latin, or
poorly-published material.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "For a stratified sample of provinces and
> archaeological sites, compare EDH entries against independent, exhaustive site
> inventories or regional corpora that enumerate all inscribed finds, including fragments,
> non-Latin texts, and late-antique material. Estimate EDH inclusion probability by century
> while controlling for material, text type, completeness, and language, then
> inverse-probability-weight the century totals."

- **Template:** G. **Population:** 14 matched provinces, dated EDR records, by century
  bucket (same `floor(year/100)` convention as §1.2/§1.3).
- **Estimand/direction:** EDH-inclusion-probability-by-century (ratio of EDH count to EDR
  count per century bucket per matched province, inverse-weighted), and whether the
  coverage-corrected century peak shifts away from 1st/2nd c.
- **Fields:** EDR date-bounds field (BINDS-AT-STAGING, as §2.4).
- **Minimum-data rule — PROPOSED, stronger than the Template G default and stated as its
  own doubtful-feasibility flag:** needs **≥50 EDR records dated to EACH of the 1st and 2nd
  centuries specifically** within the matched-province population (not merely ≥50 anywhere),
  since the whole test turns on that specific window. **This is flagged as doubtful on
  current documentation**: Part D of the roster already found "EDCS specifically (not EDR,
  which is also predominantly later/Christian-adjacent in its Roman coverage) is the only
  route to unlocking this conjecture's rivals" — i.e. EDR itself may share EDH's own
  late-thin, early-thin-or-not profile, or skew even later (Christian-adjacent), making the
  1st/2nd-century EDR denominator plausibly too thin to clear this rule. Registered as a
  real possibility, not resolved here.
- **Missingness:** matched-province scope disclosure; unresolvable-date EDR records
  excluded, exclusion rate disclosed.
- **Transformations:** inverse-probability century-weighting (per the test's own text).
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out; also recompute with/without the century-0 bucket (edge
  convention sensitivity, since "1st century AD" spans the year-zero-adjacent boundary
  ambiguity already visible in EDH-Rome's own bucket-0 count, §1.2).
- **Multiplicity:** family `-14` (1 member) — trivial.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, from `what_result_favors_rival` ("strong
  century-dependent undercoverage, and coverage-corrected provincial totals cease to peak
  unanimously in the 1st or 2nd century"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY)** if the coverage-corrected
  peak shifts outside 1st/2nd c. in a majority of matched provinces with adequate data.
  **REFUTES (within scope)** if the corrected peak stays in 1st/2nd c. for a majority.
  **PARKS** if the 1st/2nd-century-specific minimum-data rule above is not met.

### 2.8 r2-edh-b1-18 — Bracket-density (textual-loss marking) floor ≥35% (3 rivals)

*Registered figures: training minimum 50.71%, holdout minimum 39.26%, floor 35%, minimum
100 records/province.*

**18-codex-r2.** Mechanism: the catalogue and its underlying publications selectively
include fragmentary/reconstructable/scholarly-editing-worthy inscriptions, under-representing
intact or minimally informative ones.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "For several provinces, link EDH records to
> independent excavation or museum inventories that enumerate all inscribed objects,
> including items absent from EDH. Compute bracket density or the proportion requiring
> restoration in the complete inventories, and model EDH inclusion as a function of
> fragmentation, text length, and restoration status."

- **Operationalization tension, disclosed:** the test's literal form needs a "complete
  inventory" *at EDH's own findspots* (to catch items EDH omitted) — a record-linkage
  requirement, not merely an independent different-sample corpus. EDR is a **different**,
  largely non-overlapping set of inscriptions (different findspots in the main), not a
  superset of EDH's specific sites. **Weakened, PROPOSED, disclosed operationalization**:
  substitute an independent-corpus bracket-density comparison (Template G) for the literal
  object-level completeness-linkage — the same downgrade the roster itself already applied
  to the adjacent rival 18-grok-r2 when using EDB ("weak, methodological analogy only").
  Ceiling verdict is **PARTIALLY** at most, never a literal discharge of this test's own text.
- **Template:** G (weakened, per above). **Population:** 14 matched provinces, EDR records
  with resolvable bracket/lacuna markup (BINDS-AT-STAGING: EDB's own confirmed
  `<gap>`/`<supplied>` Leiden-convention TEI markup, §1.3, is the nearest documented EpiDoc
  precedent for what to look for in EDR's export).
- **Minimum-data rule:** Template G default (≥50), applied to bracket-markup-resolvable
  records specifically; if unmet, **this proxy version also parks, and the rival stays
  exactly where it started (NOT-COMPUTABLE) — EDR does not rescue it in that case.**
- **Missingness:** matched-province scope disclosure; unresolvable-markup records excluded.
- **Transformations:** bracket-density proportion comparison (EDR vs. EDH, matched
  provinces).
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-18` (3 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, adapted from `what_result_favors_rival` ("Bracket
  density falling below 35% in one or more complete inventories ... would favor the
  rival"): **FAVORS (PARTIALLY, proxy sense)** if EDR's bracket density is <35% in ≥1
  matched province where EDH's stays ≥35%. **REFUTES (within scope)** otherwise. **PARKS**
  under the Template G default.

**18-grok-r1.** Mechanism: scholarly publication and database entry preferentially select
fragmentary/incomplete/restored inscriptions for detailed transcription.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "Compare EDH bracket densities for the same provinces
> against the bracket or physical-damage rates observed in total-recovery samples drawn
> from recent systematic excavations or museum inventories that record every find without
> publication-filter preference for incomplete pieces."

- **MECHANICAL PARK — registered now, same reasoning as 09-codex-r3 (§2.5).** This test
  needs a "total-recovery sample." EDR, like EDB, is a curated catalogue of already-selected
  published material, not a total-recovery survey — it inherits the identical
  publication-selection concern this rival raises rather than resolving it, regardless of
  province count. No minimum-data rule is defined; no field mapping satisfies the population
  requirement. Second entry flagged in the final report as resisting operationalization.

**18-grok-r2.** Mechanism: modern editorial/encoding conventions mark even minor
uncertainties or formulaic restorations with brackets as house style, only loosely coupled
to actual ancient physical damage.
> **Test (verbatim, primary file):** "For a sample of EDH records that include linked
> photographs or squeezes, measure the proportion of bracketed passages that correspond to
> visible physical loss versus those that restore formulaic or uncertain but physically
> intact text; alternatively re-transcribe the same inscriptions under a strict rule that
> brackets only letters that are physically absent."

- **Operationalization tension, disclosed:** the literal test needs *EDH's own* records
  checked against *their own* linked photographs — EDR's images, if any, are of EDR's own
  (different) inscriptions, so this can never verify EDH's own bracket-vs-photograph
  correspondence, EDR or not. **Weakened, PROPOSED**: run the same *methodological analogy*
  the roster already ran with EDB (Part B item 2) — using EDR's own bracket-vs-image
  correspondence, if resolvable, as a second demonstration that the method is executable in
  principle on a corpus with real image assets, not as a discharge of this rival's own
  literal claim about EDH. Ceiling verdict: **PARTIALLY, methodological-analogy-only**, same
  cap the roster already applied to the EDB version of this finding.
- **Template:** G (weakened). **Population:** 14 matched provinces, EDR records carrying a
  resolvable facsimile/image-URL field (BINDS-AT-STAGING structural presence check, §7) AND
  bracket/lacuna markup.
- **Minimum-data rule:** **PROPOSED — ≥50 image-linked, bracket-bearing EDR records** in the
  matched population; else parks.
- **Missingness:** matched-province scope disclosure; records lacking either the image link
  or resolvable markup excluded, exclusion rate disclosed.
- **Transformations:** proportion of bracketed passages classified as physical-loss vs.
  formulaic/intact (same classification task the roster's EDB version described, applied to
  EDR's own image-linked records).
- **Sensitivity:** leave-Roma-out.
- **Multiplicity:** family `-18` (3 members), Holm-Bonferroni.
- **Verdict thresholds — PROPOSED**, adapted from `what_result_favors_rival`: **FAVORS
  (PARTIALLY, methodological-analogy-only)** if a substantial fraction (PROPOSED: ≥30%) of
  EDR's own bracketed passages classify as non-physical/formulaic rather than visible
  physical loss. **REFUTES (within scope)** if <15% do (brackets track physical loss
  tightly). 15–30% → indeterminate. **PARKS** under the minimum-data rule above.

### 2.9 Rivals considered and not registered — reconciliation of the "15–18" figure

14, not 15–18, cleared the bar above. What was excluded, and why, so the gap is visible:

- **Excluded as self-contained / EDH-internal** (need no acquired corpus at all, so
  multi-province breadth is irrelevant to them): 02-codex-r1/r3, 03-codex-r1/r2, grok-r1,
  06-codex-r1/r2, grok-r1, 09-codex-r1/r2, 11-codex-r1/r2/r3, 12-codex-r2/r3, 14-codex-r1,
  18-codex-r1/r3. These stay exactly where the roster left them (mostly already-executed on
  held EDH data); EDR acquisition does not touch their status.
- **Excluded as needing a structurally different (non-epigraphic) instrument regardless of
  EDR:** 14-codex-r3 (demographic/construction-volume estimates), 14-grok-r1/r2
  (stratigraphic dating / total-recovery series, dating-method-criteria field) — same
  reasoning as the roster's own -01 verdict; no epigraphic acquisition, EDR included, fixes
  these.
- **Registered but resolved as MECHANICAL PARKS in §2.5/§2.8 rather than left off the list
  entirely**, because the task brief's instruction is to register the complete eligible
  family including parking reasons, not to silently drop hard cases: 09-codex-r3,
  18-grok-r1.
- **`r2-edh-b1-13` (Jireček line)** — deliberately not in this registry; the decision doc
  registers it as its own triangulation family, §6, not an ordinary rival entry.

---

## 3. TM linkage specification

**Canonical TM normalization — PROPOSED mechanics implementing the decision doc's already-fixed
rule.** EDB stores `raw->>'tm_id'` as a bare numeric string (e.g. `"632004"`, confirmed
§1.3/roster Part C). EDH stores `raw->>'trismegistos_uri'` as a full URI (e.g.
`https://www.trismegistos.org/text/632004`); the roster's own Part C query already
established the extraction: `regexp_replace(trismegistos_uri, '.*/(\d+)/?$', '\1')`.
Canonical form: strip any URI scheme/host/path prefix down to the trailing digit run, strip
leading zeros, cast to integer. **BINDS-AT-STAGING** for EDR specifically: the consult
records that "EDR records carry Trismegistos ids" but the exact field/attribute name is not
documented pre-opening; whatever form it takes, the same strip-to-trailing-digits,
leading-zero-strip, integer-cast normalization applies. **Multi-id handling:** if any
record (EDH, EDB, or EDR) carries more than one TM id (delimited or multi-valued), every
individual id is added to that record's own id-set; the exclusion rule below operates on
set intersection, not first-id-only.

**Exclusion rule — transcribed verbatim from the decision doc, not re-decided:** "any
intersection of TM identifier sets excludes the EDR record; ambiguous/many-to-many matches
exclude every implicated record."

**EDH's TM coverage, measured fresh from the live DB (§1.2): 76,835/81,855 = 93.8672%.**
This is the ceiling on how much of EDH's own side of the linkage can be TM-matched at all;
the 6.13% of EDH records with no TM id cannot positively confirm independence for any EDR
record via this channel (they can only fail to catch an overlap that may still exist —
folded into the residual, §4).

**Missing/malformed-TM treatment — PROPOSED (predeclared per the decision doc's
instruction, not itself fixed by it):** an EDR record with a missing or malformed
(non-numeric-after-normalization) TM field is **not excluded by TM-linkage alone** — absence
of evidence is not evidence of independence — but **is counted toward the residual-
contamination envelope's risk pool** (§4): if that record also falls within EDR's own
documented 11,851 EDH-origin count (§1.1), its missing/malformed TM id is exactly why
TM-linkage failed to catch it, and it flows into the residual R, not into a silently-assumed-
clean bucket.

**Supplemental linkage channels — PROPOSED, predeclared before any outcome is examined per
the decision doc's instruction:**
1. **Explicit source cross-reference** — BINDS-AT-STAGING structural presence check (§7):
   does EDR's export carry an explicit "source: EDH" / EDH-id cross-reference field at all
   (plausible, since EDR's own documentation already discloses which records are
   EDH-origin in aggregate, §1.1)? If present, used as a direct, high-precision exclusion
   channel, independent of and additive to the TM-id channel.
2. **Publication/bibliography concordance** — where both an EDH and an EDR record cite the
   same standard external corpus citation (e.g. the same CIL/AE volume+number), normalized
   by stripping whitespace/punctuation, uppercasing the corpus abbreviation, and casting the
   catalogue number to integer; a match excludes, same as a TM match.
3. **Provenance fingerprint (last-resort, asymmetric)** — a composite of normalized findspot
   name + a fixed-length normalized transcription prefix + date bounds. **Used only to ADD
   candidate matches to the "ambiguous/many-to-many" exclusion bucket, never to positively
   confirm independence** — i.e. it can only make the excluded set larger (conservative), and
   a fingerprint match alone, without TM or explicit cross-reference corroboration, is
   treated as "ambiguous" under the exclusion rule above (excludes both implicated records)
   rather than silently ignored.

**Quarantine-not-delete — transcribed from the decision doc.** Excluded EDR records are
retained with a disclosed exclusion flag (mirroring the existing `raw['unit_class']`/
`raw['disclosed_basis']` pattern already used by `edb_census.py`/`mmm_sdbm_census.py` —
**PROPOSED field name** `raw['edh_linkage_status']` with values `clean` /
`excluded_tm_overlap` / `excluded_supplemental_<channel>` / `excluded_ambiguous`), never
physically deleted, so the exclusion is auditable and reversible if the linkage rule is
later amended.

---

## 4. Residual-contamination rule

**The envelope — transcribed from the decision doc, numbers from already-recorded public
documentation (§1.1), not re-derived here:** EDR's own documented EDH-origin count is
**11,851** (9.85% of its declared 120,309 total, per EDR's own "State of the Art" page,
already on record in `tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` §B — not re-fetched in this
session). The residual **R = 11,851 − (records excluded by §3's TM linkage + supplemental
channels)**, computed at staging after linkage runs, before any rival test uses the
eligible manifest.

**Per-contrast worst-case sensitivity — PROPOSED concrete computation, implementing the
decision doc's "predeclared adversarial/worst-case sensitivity bounds for each affected
contrast":** for every contrast a registered test (§2) or the Rome triangulation (§6)
computes, run it **twice** under adversarial reassignment of the residual R, in the
direction relevant to the verdict being checked:
1. **Worst-case-for-the-base-conjecture / best-case-for-the-rival**: assume all R residual
   records fall into whichever cell of the contrast most helps the rival's case (e.g., for a
   province-share test, assume every residual record sits in the matched province and on
   the side of the threshold that most inflates the rival-favoring statistic). A
   **REFUTES**-the-rival verdict is reported as surviving the bound only if it still refutes
   under this reassignment.
2. **Worst-case-for-the-rival / best-case-for-the-base-conjecture**: the mirror-image
   reassignment. A **FAVORS**-the-rival verdict is reported as surviving the bound only if
   it still favors under this reassignment.

**The contamination-sensitive label rule — transcribed/extended from the decision doc:**
any verdict whose sign or threshold-crossing changes between the two adversarial
reassignments is labeled **CONTAMINATION-SENSITIVE** and may not be published as a clean
discharge or refutation; it is either published with that explicit caveat attached or stays
PARKED, per the countersignatory's later choice — this document does not pre-select which,
since that is exactly the kind of post-hoc judgment call the decision doc reserves for a
dated amendment, not a pre-registration default.

---

## 5. EAGLE-conventions audit instrument

**Purpose, transcribed from the decision doc:** d_dep addresses *correlated conventions and
editorial practice* only — record overlap is already fully handled (excluded/bounded) by
§3/§4. This audit's dimension A below is explicitly the **residual** genealogy signal beyond
what TM-linkage catches (matching bibliographic fingerprints, etc.), not a duplicate of §3/§4.

**Dimensions and evidence sources — PROPOSED:**

| Dim. | Question | Evidence sources |
|---|---|---|
| A. Record genealogy (residual, beyond TM-linkage) | Beyond §3's TM/supplemental exclusions, is there evidence of further shared record-level lineage (matching bibliographic fingerprint, matching findspot+transcription-prefix) that TM-matching didn't catch? | §3 channel 3 (provenance fingerprint) match rate on the *already-TM-excluded* set, as a calibration check; EDR's own disclosed 9.85% EDH-origin figure (§1.1) as the base rate this dimension is trying to residually detect beyond |
| B. Editorial-source genealogy | Do EDH, EDB, and EDR draw on shared underlying publications/bibliographic sources (CIL, AE) or overlapping named contributors/institutions, even for physically distinct records? | EDH's own `responsible_individual`-based contributor analysis (already computed on held data per the roster, e.g. Feraudi = 29.37% of the EDH holdout); EDR's and EDB's own listed personnel/institution rosters (already read, `tripode_edr_holdout_verdict_20260809.md` §strutt_en.php for EDR; `EDB_ATTRIBUTION` for EDB) |
| C. Ontology harmonization | Do EDH/EDB/EDR share controlled vocabularies (e.g. EAGLE vocabulary URIs) for genre/monument-type/material, as opposed to independently-authored local vocabularies? | EDB's own confirmed `ref="eagle-vocab-uri"` pattern on `objectType`/`material`/`keywords` (§1.3, `_vocab_field` in `edb_census.py`); EDH's own vocabulary is confirmed English free-text (`type_of_monument`, no `ref=` URI structure — a real EDH/EDB difference already noted in the roster, §E.6); whether EDR's EpiDoc export carries the same `ref=` URI pattern is a **permitted structural presence check at blind staging** (§7) |
| D. Shared software/conversion conventions | Do EDH/EDB/EDR share the same EpiDoc conversion pipeline, TEI schema version, or date-encoding convention (e.g. `notBefore-custom`/`notAfter-custom`-style attributes)? | EDR's own Zenodo description ("automatic conversion of some contents of EDR into EpiDoc", §1.1) vs. EDB's own hand-documented per-project EpiDoc field mapping (§1.3) — a structural, staging-time comparison of the two corpora's raw XML shape, not an outcome comparison |

**Scoring — PROPOSED:** each dimension scored 0 (no evidence of sharing) – 1 (weak/indirect)
– 2 (moderate/documented) – 3 (strong/confirmed direct), by whoever performs the audit,
**blind to every rival's result**, per the decision doc's hard-gate ordering. Composite =
sum of the four dimension scores (range 0–12).

**Test-specific score→d mapping — PROPOSED formula:**

```
d(test) = 1 − sensitivity_weight(test_type) × (composite / 12)
```

with **sensitivity_weight — PROPOSED, per test type** (how exposed that *kind* of test is to
shared conventions, independent of the specific composite score): language tests
(-13/Rome-triangulation-style) **1.0** (language tagging is exactly what EAGLE's controlled
vocabulary harmonizes, per dimension C's own evidence); genre/monument-type/material tests
(-06, -09, -18) **0.8** (also EAGLE-vocabulary-controlled per EDB's confirmed `ref=` pattern,
§1.3, slightly less central than language); chronology tests (-14, and the triangulation's
chronology-matching) **0.6** (date-encoding conventions are shared via EpiDoc's `origDate`
structure but are less centrally an "EAGLE" harmonization target than controlled-vocabulary
fields); spatial/province-count tests (-02, -03, -11, -12) **0.3** (region/province labels
are locally defined per-project — EDH's own province codes and EDR's own regione names do
not visibly derive from a shared controlled list, per §2.1's crosswalk needing to be
name-matched by hand rather than joined on a shared code — so these are the least exposed).

**Hard floor and override — transcribed/extended from the decision doc's correction #1**
("d_dep may not excuse record overlap... direct genealogy ⇒ exclusion or parking, never a
discount"): (a) **d_dep is floored at 0.4** — below that, the test is treated as PARKED, not
discounted, since a discount that large would functionally erase the test's evidentiary
value while still nominally "running" it, contrary to the decision doc's intent; (b) **if
dimension A alone scores 3** (confirmed direct residual genealogy for the *specific matched
population* a given test uses, beyond what §3/§4 already excluded), that test is EXCLUDED
outright regardless of composite score — this is the hard override the decision doc
requires, kept structurally distinct from the smooth d_dep discount which covers dimensions
B/C/D only.

---

## 6. The Rome three-corpus triangulation

Registered as its own family, per the decision doc's explicit instruction ("registered now
because it was motivated before anyone saw EDR's Rome numbers... one triangulation family,
not three votes").

### 6.1 Frozen Rome boundary, per corpus — transcribed/operationalized

- **EDH:** province code `Rom` (`raw->'_scriptome_harvest'->>'province_code' = 'Rom'`),
  confirmed **4,393 rows** live (§1.2 method).
- **EDB:** Rome-only by the deposit's own remit — no filter needed; **all 40,760 rows**
  (§1.3), confirmed no non-Rome findspot exists in `origin_place`/`title_parsed_site`
  (roster §0: "Zero non-Rome findspots exist").
- **EDR:** region label `Roma` per its own documented 15-regione breakdown (§1.1,
  **48,110** records) — BINDS-AT-STAGING for the exact per-record label string, resolved
  via the same crosswalk-confirmation mechanism as §2.1, applied to this one region only.

### 6.2 Common chronological support — PROPOSED, motivated by EDH/EDB's actual distributions

Queried live, read-only, aggregate only (no EDR data involved):

**EDH-Rome century buckets** (`floor(date_start/100)`, n=2,556 dated of 4,393):
`-4:2, -3:3, -2:5, -1:306, 0:668, 1:753, 2:443, 3:291, 4:78, 5:7`. Bounds: −350 to 600.

**EDB century buckets** (same convention, n=27,934 dated of 40,760):
`0:5, 1:48, 2:5370, 3:18910, 4:2922, 5:335, 6:308, 7:36`. Bounds: 1 to 824. (Reproduces the
roster's own cited "1st–2nd c. = 53 rows = 0.19%"; "3rd–4th c. = 24,280 = 86.9%"; "5th–7th c.
= 3,565 = 12.8%" exactly: 5+48=53; 5370+18910=24280; 2922+335+308=3565.)

**PROPOSED common support: years 100–499 CE inclusive (centuries II–V, buckets 1–4).**
Justification, from the numbers just reproduced: within this window, EDH-Rome retains
753+443+291+78 = **1,565/2,556 = 61.2%** of its own dated material, and EDB retains
48+5,370+18,910+2,922 = **27,250/27,934 = 97.6%** of its own — both corpora keep the large
majority of their dated mass. The window explicitly **excludes** bucket 0 (1st c. CE: EDH
668 rows but EDB only 5 — EDB has negligible presence there, consistent with Christian
epigraphy predating its own visibility in the record) and buckets 5+ (6th c.+: EDH only 7
rows — EDH has negligible presence there for Rome specifically). A window chosen to
maximize joint coverage of BOTH corpora's actual mass, not just one, is the correct reading
of "common chronological support."

### 6.3 Exact binary language definition — reproduced live from EDH/EDB

**EDH-Rome:** `language` field values `L=4,371 · GL=16 · G=5 · LG=1` (n=4,393, live query,
§1.2). Binary rule: non-Latin = `language <> 'L'`. Non-Latin = 16+5+1 = **22/4,393 =
0.5008% ≈ 0.50%** — reproduces the roster's cited figure exactly.

**EDB:** `raw->>'language_code'` values `la=36,789 · grc=3,445 · "la, grc"=526` (n=40,760,
live query, §1.3). Binary rule: non-Latin = `language_code <> 'la'`. Non-Latin =
3,445+526 = **3,971/40,760 = 9.7424% ≈ 9.74%** — reproduces the roster's cited figure
exactly.

**General binary rule, registered for EDR — PROPOSED:** non-Latin = TRUE iff the record's
resolved language classification is not exactly and solely Latin (excludes pure-Latin;
includes Greek-only, Latin+Greek bilingual, any other single/multi-language value).
**Missingness policy — PROPOSED:** records with unresolvable/blank language classification
are **excluded from the binary denominator** (neither arm), reported as a separate
missingness rate — not silently defaulted to Latin (which would bias toward the base
conjecture) or to non-Latin (which would inflate the effect). **BINDS-AT-STAGING**: the
mechanical mapping from EDR's own language field(s) to this rule, using the same
most-specific-signal-preferred cascade already used for EDB's `@xml:lang` resolution
(§1.3), applied without reference to the outcome.

### 6.4 Multinomial secondary — Latin-only / Greek-only / multilingual / other / unknown

Directly readable from the same live counts: **EDH-Rome** — Latin-only (`L`) 4,371 (99.50%),
Greek-only (`G`) 5 (0.11%), multilingual (`GL`+`LG`) 17 (0.39%), other 0, unknown 0.
**EDB** — Latin-only (`la`) 36,789 (90.26%), Greek-only (`grc`) 3,445 (8.45%), multilingual
(`la, grc`) 526 (1.29%), other 0, unknown 0. **EDR — BINDS-AT-STAGING**, same five-way
taxonomy, mapped mechanically from whatever language field(s) EDR's EpiDoc export carries
(the same TEI `@xml:lang` convention EDB uses is the documented EpiDoc precedent, not a
guarantee).

### 6.5 Century strata and fixed weights — PROPOSED

Strata: the four century buckets inside the common-support window (§6.2) — II (100–199),
III (200–299), IV (300–399), V (400–499) CE. **Fixed weights: equal, 0.25 each.**
Justification: no probability sample exists for Roman epigraphy in any of the three corpora
(restated as the interpretation boundary, §6.8) so there is no natural population-based
weight to borrow; weighting by the pooled EDH+EDB century distribution would just reproduce
whichever corpus is larger (EDB outweighs EDH-Rome roughly 11:1 in raw count within the
window) — exactly the asymmetry standardization exists to remove. Equal weighting is the
standard default absent an independent reference population.

### 6.6 Two estimands

1. **Chronology-matched total corpus-composition contrast.** Within the common-support
   window, direct-standardized to the equal century weights (§6.5), compare the
   standardized non-Latin proportion (§6.3) across EDH-Rome, EDB, EDR-Rome. Measures what
   each database's Rome holdings record as non-Latin after removing the century-mix
   difference between corpora — database selection/composition, full stop.
2. **Common-support contrast, additionally standardized on type/context/confessional
   scope.** Same as (1), plus standardization on: (a) **funerary vs. non-funerary**, via a
   PROPOSED crosswalk — EDH: `title` (=`type_of_inscription`) value `epitaph` → funerary,
   else non-funerary (live query, §2.1-adjacent: EDH-Rome's `title` field is 45.5% blank/
   uncategorized — 1,997/4,393 — disclosed as a real limitation on this covariate's
   coverage, **missingness policy PROPOSED: blank-title EDH-Rome records excluded from the
   type-standardized arm's denominator, exclusion rate disclosed, not silently folded into
   either bucket**); EDB: `genre` value `Sepulcralis` → funerary, else non-funerary (100%
   coverage, live query, §1.3: 38,950/40,760 = 95.6% funerary); EDR — BINDS-AT-STAGING,
   same binary, mapped from whatever type/genre field EDR's export carries. (b)
   **confessional scope** — EDB is 100% Christian-scoped by curatorial remit regardless of
   its `religious_iconography` marker's presence rate (10.5%, §1.3/§1.9 query); **EDH
   carries no explicit confession/religion field at all** (confirmed: EDH's raw key
   inventory, §1.2 query 6, has no religion/confession/iconography key) — so this arm's
   EDH side is **not mechanically recoverable from held fields**. **Mechanical parking
   reason, registered now:** if EDR's own documented schema likewise carries no
   confession-equivalent field (checkable as a permitted structural presence check at
   staging, §7), the confessional-scope arm of estimand 2 mechanically parks and estimand 2
   runs on type/context standardization only — decided by the field-presence check, not by
   anyone's discretion once staging begins.

### 6.7 EDB–EDR and EDH–EDR overlap audits

Same mechanism as §3's TM linkage, applied pairwise, specified now and executed once EDR is
staged — **not run in this session** (mirrors the roster's own Part C EDB–EDH check, which
that document explicitly deferred: "Recommended, not run, per the task's explicit
instruction... do not run without countersignature" — this bundle respects that same hold
and does not pre-empt it here, since it is a different corpus pair (EDH–EDB, not
EDH–EDR/EDB–EDR) that remains the countersignatory's call, not re-opened by this draft).
Direct duplicate or source-derived records, once found, are excluded from serving as
"independent" adjudicators in the triangulation (transcribed from the consult); capture
overlap is reported separately from the language contrast itself.

### 6.8 Interpretation boundary — transcribed from the consult, not re-decided

"This adjudicates database selection and measurement, not Rome's true population language
prevalence. These corpora lack probability sampling frames." Stated here so no downstream
reader mistakes either estimand for a demographic claim about ancient Rome.

### 6.9 Four predeclared decision patterns, with equivalence margins — PROPOSED numbers

Pattern text transcribed from the consult; the numeric margins/thresholds implementing
"≈"/"unlike" are this draft's proposal, since the consult named the patterns but left the
numbers open ("predeclare equivalence margins and effect thresholds").

- **"≈" (statistically equivalent):** TOST (two one-sided tests) equivalence at margin
  **±2.0 percentage points** on the standardized non-Latin proportion — declared when the
  90% CI of the pairwise standardized-proportion difference lies entirely within
  [−2.0pp, +2.0pp]. **Justification:** 2.0pp is about 22% of the observed 9.24pp EDH–EDB gap
  (9.74% − 0.50%) that motivated this whole triangulation — small enough to meaningfully
  distinguish "close to EDH" from "close to EDB," not so small that ordinary sampling noise
  in corpora of this size would prevent ever declaring equivalence.
- **"Unlike" (clearly different):** the 95% CI of the pairwise difference excludes 0 AND the
  point estimate exceeds **4.0pp** (twice the equivalence margin, so there is a deliberate
  2.0–4.0pp corridor that is neither "≈" nor "unlike" — see the fourth pattern).
- **Pattern 1 — EDR ≈ EDH, both unlike EDB → EDB specialist selection strengthened.**
- **Pattern 2 — EDR ≈ EDB, both unlike EDH → EDH undercoverage/selection strengthened.**
- **Pattern 3 — Convergence after scope adjustment** (estimand 2's standardized gap closes
  to within the "≈" margin of all three pairwise contrasts, where estimand 1's did not) **→
  chronology/corpus-scope composition explains the gap.**
- **Pattern 4 — EDR intermediate, in the 2.0–4.0pp indeterminate corridor from both, or all
  three pairwise contrasts distinct → mixed/corpus-specific selection, no simple winner.**
  This is also where every indeterminate per-rival verdict in §2 (the 2–4pp-style bands
  registered per entry) structurally belongs — an honest "the data didn't resolve this
  cleanly" bucket, not a forced call.

**Multiplicity, this family only — PROPOSED:** two estimands × up to three pairwise
contrasts (EDH–EDB, EDH–EDR, EDB–EDR) = up to 6 tests; Holm-Bonferroni within this family
at α=0.05, kept separate from §2's per-conjecture families (§2.1's multiplicity section),
consistent with the decision doc registering the triangulation as its own family.

---

## 7. Blind-staging structural diagnostics

Exhaustive, per the decision doc ("blind staging ingest... Permit only predeclared
structural diagnostics... not outcome or hypothesis-facing summaries") and the task brief's
own explicit list.

**PERMITTED before the manifest freezes:**
- Archive integrity: file count, per-file byte size, checksum re-verification against §1.1's
  recorded MD5.
- XML/EpiDoc well-formedness: parse success/failure count and rate; failing-file identifiers
  (not content).
- Required-field PRESENCE only (coverage rate, never the value distribution): does each
  record have a non-empty id, a region/regione label, a date field, a language field, an
  object-type field, a TM-id field, an image/facsimile-URL field, a bracket/lacuna-markup
  field, a confession/religion-equivalent field. Each is a yes/no coverage-rate check.
- Identifier validity: EDR-ID format conformance (`EDRnnnnnn`), TM-id format conformance
  (numeric after §3's normalization) — pass/fail counts only.
- **Region-label inventory**: the distinct set of region/regione label *strings* present,
  and the bare record count per label (one dimension only). This is what resolves §2.6's
  Template-M mechanical-park question (does "Raetia"/"Noricum" appear at all) without
  crossing into outcome territory — it answers existence, not composition.
- Overall record count, and record count per single top-level facet (region OR object-type
  OR date-precision-bucket, one at a time) — never two facets crossed together.
- Within-EDR duplicate detection by identifier equality (structural, not content-based).
- Declared-vs-parsed record-count reconciliation (mirrors `EDB_EXPECTED_RECORD_COUNT`'s own
  assertion pattern).

**PROHIBITED before the manifest freezes, EAGLE audit completes, and d_dep is frozen — even
in aggregate, even one-dimensional:**
- Language-mix tabulation (any granularity) — this is §6.3's own outcome variable; seeing
  even an aggregate number here would let staging informally preview the flagship result
  before the hard gates the decision doc specifically orders.
- Date/chronology-distribution tabulation (any granularity) — same reasoning, §6.2/§2.7's
  outcome variable.
- Any BY-REGION-BY-OUTCOME cross-tabulation of any kind (genre-by-region, type-by-region,
  damage-marker-by-region, language-by-region, etc.) — this is the general form the two
  bullets above are specific instances of.
- Any rival-specific joint quantity (e.g., instrumentum-domesticum count *in* Raetia
  specifically) — the region-label inventory and the object-type inventory may each be
  checked as separate one-dimensional facts (both permitted above), but their
  *intersection* — which is what would actually tell staging whether -11/-12 will favor or
  refute — must wait for the post-freeze execution phase, not blind staging. (§2.6's
  mechanical park is still resolvable at this stage, because it only needs the region-label
  inventory alone — if "Raetia" never appears as a label at all, the intersection can never
  be non-empty either, so the park follows from the permitted one-dimensional check without
  needing the prohibited two-dimensional one.)
- Any content-derived summary beyond structural presence (e.g. transcription-length
  distributions for -18's opportunity-effect framing) — waits for the execution phase.
- Anything, in general, that would let a human or model infer which registered rivals are
  likely to be favored or refuted before §3–§5 are frozen and the EAGLE audit is complete.

---

## 8. Amendment and parking log skeleton

Per the decision doc: "Any data peculiarity needing a new analytical choice produces a
dated amendment BEFORE the relevant outcome is examined, or that analysis is exploratory."
Empty and ready for real entries — nothing below is a live amendment, this is the template
plus the entries already known to require one at staging.

| # | Date | Stage | Trigger | Choice made | Registered before or after the relevant outcome was seen? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 2026-08-09 | Blind staging (gate 3 close) | EDR's real per-record region labels differ from the bundle's simplified crosswalk column (staging report §7a) | Normalization rule: keep the `"(Regio N)"` suffixes (EDH's own canonical names carry them); strip EDR's `"cum insulis"` qualifier on Latium et Campania / Sardinia / Sicilia; map spelling variant `"Bruttii"` (EDR) → `"Bruttium"` (EDH) for Regio III; `"Regio incerta"` and blank labels are unassigned (excluded from per-region tests, counted in totals); the Sabina/Samnium many-to-one handling stands as the bundle already disclosed | BEFORE — no outcome-facing quantity computed anywhere yet |
| A2 | 2026-08-09 | Manifest freeze (gate 3) | Supplemental TM-linkage channels 2 (bibliography concordance) and 3 (provenance fingerprint) were not executed; channel 1 confirmed structurally moot (no such field exists; 3/115,591 incidental free-text mentions) (staging report §5, §7g) | Channels 2–3 are TOMBSTONED as registered-unexecuted for this run. Reasons: their analytical choices were never frozen pre-staging; their precision is unverified in both directions (a sloppy concordance can wrongly exclude clean records as easily as it catches contaminated ones); the residual-envelope machinery (§4) was designed to carry exactly this residual, and R = 1,483 on 105,222 eligible (≤1.41% worst-case) is within what the adversarial reassignment bounds absorb. Irreversibility clause: executing them AFTER any rival outcome is seen would be outcome-contaminated linkage revision and is inadmissible for this run — the choice is made once, here, blind | BEFORE — decided with the blind window still open |
| A3 | 2026-08-09 | Manifest freeze (gate 3) | The single parse-failure record (aEDR188615.xml) carries no quarantine flags a literal reading would count as eligible (staging report §6) | Eligible ≡ parse_ok AND non-null edr_id AND no quarantine flags — one record stricter than the literal phrasing; manifest hash unaffected either way. If EDR ships a repaired file in a later version, its admission is a new dated amendment, not a silent re-parse | BEFORE |
| P1 | 2026-08-09 | Blind staging (gate 3) | Region inventory: Raetia and Noricum entirely absent from EDR (0 rows, permitted existence check only) | **11-grok-r1, 12-codex-r1, 12-grok-r1 mechanically PARK**, exactly as pre-registered ("LIKELY TO PARK, pending the actual region-label check"). Park, not kill — nothing about the rivals was tested | BEFORE — resolved by a permitted structural check |
| P2 | 2026-08-09 | Blind staging (gate 3) | No confession/religion-equivalent structured field anywhere in EDR's schema (element/attribute-name search, 0.0000%) | §6.6 estimand 2's confessional-scope arm takes its pre-written contingent branch: **PARKED**. The bundle's own contingency, triggered, not a new choice | BEFORE |
| N1 | 2026-08-09 | Blind staging (gate 3) | Per-record licence field is 100%-uniform Europeana RR-F ("Reserved Rights – Free access"), a third rights signal conflicting in kind with Zenodo's deposit-level CC BY 4.0 and the site footer's CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (staging report §7b) | Recorded under the decision doc's licence gate: **redistribution gate only, never epistemic**. No record-payload redistribution in any form until resolved; aggregate statistical results are unaffected. Logged in PROVENANCE.md; flagged to the operator | Not outcome-relevant |
| N2 | 2026-08-09 | Blind staging (gate 3) | Declared-vs-parsed gap of 4,718 records (3.92%) with no recoverable composition; and the residual baseline 11,851 is scoped to the full 120,309 declared corpus, not this dump's 115,591 (staging report §7c/§7d) | R = 1,483 stands as an UPPER BOUND with the compounding disclosure: EDH-origin records absent from the dump cannot contaminate it, so both caveats push the true residual DOWN — the bound's direction is conservative and unchanged. Every downstream verdict citing the envelope must carry the upper-bound qualifier | BEFORE |
| A4 | 2026-08-09 | Pre-unblinding audit (between gates 3 and 4) | GPT-5.6-sol tower consult (docs/generated/quincunx_tower_consult_20260809.md): "a denominator estimated by one instrument and then treated as known evidence by a second test is already a tower — and currently inadmissible; an inferred completeness weight used with its uncertainty discarded is also an illicit intermediate. If the frozen EDR bundle contains either case, record that before outcomes are exposed" | **Computational-depth audit of every registered estimand, performed against the frozen spec only (no data touched). Result: CLEAN — no hidden towers.** Template P's ρ_p = EDR_count_p/EDH_count_p and the inverse-coverage-reweighted shares are deterministic functionals of two fully-observed catalogues (found-count arithmetic; the estimand is about the catalogues themselves, so no latent target and no discarded uncertainty); Templates G and M are within-facet found proportions and presence checks; §6's standardization uses fixed registered 0.25 weights (constants, not estimates) and mechanical crosswalks on found metadata with registered missingness policies. No promoted instrument's output enters any test as evidence anywhere in the bundle. One disclosure attaches to Template-P verdicts: the coverage ratio is catalogue-relative (EDR-as-inventory is the rival's own premise), never an inferred true inclusion rate — already implied by the PARTIALLY scoping, now explicit | BEFORE — no outcome exposed; blind window intact |
| A5 | 2026-08-09 | Gate 4 close (blind EAGLE audit countersigned) | Audit computed the Rome triangulation to d_dep = 0.250 at its frozen by-name 1.0 weight (below the 0.4 floor), robust across every defensible scoring combination; and found the bundle's stated 1.0 rationale mislocated (EAGLE's seven vocabularies cover no language and no geography — primary source; the real language-adjacent dependence is dimension B personnel identity + dimension D shared TEI/EpiDoc conventions) | **d_dep values FROZEN as audited (docs/generated/quincunx_edr_eagle_audit_20260809.md §5.1). Triangulation headline PARKS at the governing 1.0 reading** — re-weighting post-computation would be retrospective redesign; wrong reason, right weight, recorded. Park is monotone-robust (A can only rise), so A2's tombstone stands and no relitigating evidence is commissioned. The frozen 0.6 carve-out survives: Pattern-3 chronology-matching sub-analysis runs at d_dep = 0.550, verdict wording constrained to Pattern 3; patterns 1/2/4 UNCALLABLE this run; §6.7 EDB–EDR structural overlap audit is a precondition for that arm. Margin tests 06-codex-r3/09-grok-r1/09-grok-r2: D = 2 upheld, dual-value disclosure obligation (0.467 governing / 0.400 alternative — AT the floor, so live either way) | BEFORE — audit and countersignature both blind to every rival outcome |
| A6 | 2026-08-09 | Gate 5 close (executable analyses frozen + countersigned) | Freeze report docs/generated/quincunx_edr_gate5_freeze_report_20260809.md: 17 PROPOSED rows (A6–A22 there), §6.7 EDB–EDR overlap audit run (conservative union 824/746 eligible = 0.71%; broad 968/872), multiplicity-mechanism gap, incidental 434-record HD-citation finding | **Package ops/popper/edr_rivals/ FROZEN as countersign-amended** (52/52 synthetic tests, rerun independently). All proposed rows ratified; A13/A14 ratified AS AMENDED by countersignature rows C1/C2 (per-id EAGLE-vocabulary verification found: Elogium-as-votive error, missing Italian Dedica-votiva family, missing general-Marmor id 48 that classify_material would have silently mis-bucketed as non-stone). Multiplicity ruling: Holm/BH recorded INAPPLICABLE-AS-WRITTEN to the 9 deterministic-threshold rivals (bundle drafting oversight, owned); family bookkeeping + tally disclosure instead; TOST/CI implemented where footing exists. §3a's 434 HD-citing eligible records: A2 stands, corroboration only, list unusable this run. Pattern-3 exclusion = broad union (A22). Gate-6 single blind execution AUTHORIZED | BEFORE — no outcome examined; frozen config.py SHA-256 5e2c64cd475552694afeccf215bc77f995ba77a3635be1d8f8364bc9bd041b15 |
| A7 | 2026-08-09 | Gate 6 first execution attempt (CRASHED, void) | run_all.py --unblind terminated on an unhandled csv.Error: one EDR record's edition_text exceeds Python csv's 128KiB default field ceiling, hit inside db.py's docker-exec-psql transport while fetching 18-codex-r2's rows; the process died BEFORE write_reports() and before any verdict was computed to completion, persisted, or printed (captured log independently inspected by the countersignatory: the only 'verdict'-pattern line is the opening banner; zero outcome content) | **Ruling: the crashed run does NOT consume the single-execution authorization.** The rule's purpose is to prevent outcome-contingent repetition; a run that emitted zero outcome information to any observer cannot contaminate a successor, so a repaired re-execution IS the registered single blind execution. The all-or-nothing output structure is retained deliberately (incremental write-out would turn a future crash into partial unblinding). Repair applied at countersignature: csv.field_size_limit(sys.maxsize) at db.py module level — a pure transport-layer change (what can be carried, never what is computed); no analysis function, constant, threshold, or mapping touched; 52/52 synthetic tests re-passed; db.py frozen post-repair SHA-256 048e212b712457bab8d2642310513bc20c89b1557d8d3ef191165efb5b076ec9. Re-execution AUTHORIZED as the single blind execution | BEFORE — no outcome was ever exposed |
| A8 | 2026-08-09 | Gate 6 close (verdict set countersigned) | Single blind re-execution under A7 completed: 9 live rivals + Pattern-3 arm, all min-data gates cleared, zero fresh parks, every verdict Roma-robust (docs/generated/quincunx_edr_gate6b_execution_report_20260809.md + results JSON + verdicts MD) | **Verdict set FROZEN as countersign-adjudicated: 5 FAVORS(PARTIALLY) / 2 REFUTES(within scope) / 2 INDETERMINATE(mixed); parks held.** Grade moves: -03 contested, -06 strengthened (CONTAMINATION-SENSITIVE label attached, publishes with caveat), -09 level qualified + direction strengthened, -14 contested w/ sparse-cell reading note, -18 one capped qualification lands (18-grok-r2) + one format-confounded formal FAVORS (18-codex-r2, minimal weight — method matched, meaning unmatched; caught by its co-registered structured diagnostic), -02 unresolved, triangulation: scope standardization does NOT explain the gap, likeness-ordering stays uncallable. A13 coverage disclosure adopted by arithmetic reconstruction (24.38% pooled derived-other); A14 unmatched rate = recorded disclosure debt; matched-flag propagation lesson to the harness. Tally caveat per A19 stands in every citation | AT outcome — the adjudication layer; thresholds and machinery all BEFORE |
| A9 | 2026-08-10 | Post-publication-prep adversarial review (GPT-5.6-sol consult, filed verbatim) | Consult's grading audit found countersignature errors: -06 gloss arithmetic wrong (minimal flip = ~689 records into BrL, not 'essentially all 1,483'); 18-grok-r2's A16 proxy semantically unvalidated (supplied = restored-not-formulaic); 18-codex-r2 discount was outcome-informed judgment presented as frozen adjudication; A13 one-way claim conditional only; -03/-14 grades overstated; Rome-arm wording implied the parked confessional arm ran; tally-neutrality inference invalid | **Countersignature REVISED (dated block in gate-6b report): frozen verdict lines unchanged; interpretive layer corrected on all eight points; three-column discipline adopted (frozen verdict / registered robustness / post-result construct assessment, the last always labelled outcome-informed).** -06 = contamination-unresolved; 18-codex = construct-invalidated post hoc; 18-grok = unvalidated proxy, mechanism uncallable. Future batteries pre-register measurement-invariance gates. Certification v2.3 registered separately (DESIGN_QUINCUNX_CERT_V2_3_20260810.md): equivalence bands central 2/1/0.5pp + tails 1/0.5/0.25pp (both TWO-sided — the old zero-margin defect lived in the tails too), exact binomial TOST α=0.01, fresh populations+banks+sealed env, M by prospective power, domain-conditional targets excluded from certifiability this protocol version. CIL VI registered as an 800-entry ANCESTOR-FRAME AUDIT (not a fourth reality witness; park stands); -18 structured work = outcome-informed registered measurement-invariance analysis (not a blind re-test). Publication: proceed now — waiting would success-condition the record | Revision of interpretation only; every frozen output untouched |

**Anticipated-but-not-yet-triggered items, listed here only so the countersignatory sees
them coming (none of these are amendments yet — they become one only when staging actually
resolves them):**
- §2.6 Template M's region-label check (Raetia/Noricum presence/absence) — resolves a
  registered mechanical park, does not itself require a new choice, but the *specific*
  region-label strings EDR uses (if any) may need a normalization amendment if they differ
  in form from "Raetia"/"Noricum" (e.g. Italian-language variants).
- §2.1's crosswalk confirmation against EDR's real per-record region field — if EDR's
  regione labels don't literally match the 15 names on its own documentation page (possible,
  since that page is a summary, not necessarily the per-record field's exact string), a
  normalization amendment will be needed before §2's tests can run.
- §6.6 estimand 2's confessional-scope arm — parks or runs depending on a field-presence
  check; the outcome of that check is not itself an amendment, but whichever branch is taken
  should be logged here as the first real row.
- §5's dimension-C ontology-harmonization check (does EDR use `ref="eagle-vocab-uri"`) —
  informs the d_dep composite; not an amendment, but should be logged when scored.

---

## Appendix — every PROPOSED numeric/structural value in this draft, indexed

See the accompanying chat report for the flat list (margins, thresholds, minimum-data
rules, weights, the crosswalk, and the multiplicity design), organized by section, so the
countersignature can review them in one pass without re-reading the full document.

---

# COUNTERSIGNATURE — 9 August 2026

Reviewed and adopted by the orchestrator under the operator's standing delegation, with
**one amendment applied before freeze**: the audit's per-test dependence quantity is
renamed **d_dep** (a multiplicative discount in [0.4, 1.0]) — it is NOT the programme's
registered k_eff, which counts effective independent evidential paths and gates
promotion at ≥ 3. Two quantities, one name, in registered documents is how records rot;
the rename prevents it. No other content changed.

Ratified as drafted: all PROPOSED values listed in the drafting report (the 14-province
crosswalk with Val/Inc exclusions; the minimum-data rules; Holm per-conjecture families
with the triangulation as its own family and bundle-wide BH advisory; the missing-TM
flows-to-residual rule; the two-direction adversarial reassignment; the audit scoring
with hard floor 0.4 and genealogy override; the 100–499 CE common support with equal
century weights; the ±2.0pp equivalence margin and >4.0pp "unlike" threshold; all 14
per-rival verdict thresholds). The mechanical parks (09-codex-r3, 18-grok-r1) and
likely-parks-pending-region-inventory (11-grok-r1, 12-codex-r1, 12-grok-r1) are
ratified with their reasons; 18-codex-r2 and 18-grok-r2 stand as capped weakened
proxies; -13 is correctly excluded in favour of the separately registered Rome
triangulation. The residual-contamination count is correctly left unresolvable before
staging — it is the one number the design forbids knowing now.

Spot-verifications performed independently before signing: EDH-Rome language split
(4,371 L / 16 GL / 5 G / 1 LG = 22/4,393 = 0.5008%) and EDB non-Latin (3,971/40,760 =
9.7424%) both reproduce the roster's figures exactly.

**This bundle is FROZEN as of this signature.** The file is renamed without the DRAFT
mark; its SHA-256 at freeze is recorded in the commit. Changes hereafter are dated
amendments under the bundle's §8 log, never edits.

Countersigned: Claude (orchestrator).
