---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-20
family: grok
model: "Grok 4.5 expert (chat paste-back via orchestrator window)"
received: 2026-08-06
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 2
note: "r2's source/batch aggregation partially computable (literature field carries source-edition signal); r1 needs physical re-examination."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "Surviving inscriptions in some provinces more frequently retain the physical features (overall shape, architectural context, or diagnostic decoration) needed to assign a monument type, while those in other provinces are more often simple fragments or heavily reused pieces that lack such traits; this produces genuine extremes of type-assignment coverage independent of modern cataloguing effort.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Variation in physical typeability is an intrinsic property of the material already present across the empire and therefore across both alphabetical halves of the fixed EDH catalogue, generating at least one province under 30 percent and at least one over 90 percent in both the training and holdout sets.",
"named_confounds": [
"differential survival of type-diagnostic monument features",
"preservation bias by monument form and context",
"material and fragmentation differences across provinces"
],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Correlate province-level type-coverage rates with independent archaeological indicators of monument completeness or with any EDH fields that record material, condition, or find context; alternatively compare EDH coverage against type-assignment rates obtained from systematic re-examination of physical objects or high-quality photographs for a sample of the same provinces.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If coverage tracks physical-completeness indicators more strongly than any available proxy for cataloguing resources or collection history, the result favours the preservation/typeability mechanism over curatorial-resourcing variation."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "Different source publications and different phases of EDH data entry applied inconsistent policies on whether to populate the monument-type field; because material from particular provinces entered the database via particular sources or campaigns, the resulting coverage rates show extreme province-level heterogeneity even though overall cataloguing depth is not the primary driver.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "These source- and campaign-level differences are already baked into the fixed catalogue and are not aligned with alphabetical order, so both the training and holdout halves contain provinces at both the low (<30 percent) and high (>90 percent) extremes of coverage.",
"named_confounds": [
"digitization and data-entry batch effects",
"inconsistent field-population policy across source corpora",
"harvest artifact tied to publication series"
],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "If EDH metadata identify the source publication or entry batch for each row, recompute coverage rates aggregated by source or batch rather than by province and test whether the extremes of coverage are better explained by source/batch than by province.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If coverage clusters more tightly by source publication or entry campaign than by province, and the province-level extremes disappear once source is controlled for, the result favours the batch/source-policy mechanism over province-level curatorial resourcing."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
