---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-13
family: codex
model: "gpt-5.6-sol (codex-cli 0.144.0-alpha.4, ChatGPT-subscription auth)"
model_stamp_corrected: "2026-08-07 — archives were first written stamped gpt-5.5 by a runner bug (the stamper read config.toml's default instead of the -m flag actually passed). The calls themselves ran on gpt-5.6-sol throughout; only the label was wrong. Corrected in place, noted here rather than silently."
received: 2026-08-07
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 2
validation: VALID
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "EDH may inherit region-by-language selection from its source corpora and ingestion practices: western provinces could be populated chiefly from Latin-focused publications, while eastern provinces could receive more complete Greek or bilingual coverage. The apparent boundary would then be a boundary between cataloguing pipelines rather than solely between ancient linguistic cultures.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A systematic source-wide ingestion pattern would affect both alphabetic halves of the same frozen catalogue, so the holdout reproducing the training separation would be expected. It could also generate the very low western shares and predominantly above-threshold eastern shares even if the underlying provincial language distributions were less sharply divided.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "region-specific source-corpus coverage",
        "language-dependent cataloguing inclusion",
        "modern publication and digitization practice"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For a stratified sample of western and eastern sites, compare EDH records with independent, site-complete epigraphic inventories or excavation catalogues. Estimate EDH inclusion probabilities separately for Latin, Greek, and bilingual inscriptions, then recompute province shares after coverage correction.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if EDH systematically omits Greek or bilingual material at western sites, or otherwise shows region-by-language inclusion rates, and coverage-adjusted province shares substantially weaken the 5% separation."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The province-level shares may be produced by unequal mixtures of inscription-producing contexts rather than a province-wide linguistic boundary. Western records could be dominated by Latin military, administrative, or municipal corpora, while eastern records are dominated by Greek civic, funerary, or metropolitan corpora.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Because every inscription receives equal weight, a few heavily documented sites or genres can determine a province's percentage. Similar archaeological and cataloguing concentration across provinces in both alphabetic halves would reproduce low western and high eastern aggregate shares, including occasional eastern exceptions where Latin official or military material dominates.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "record-weighted denominator",
        "site and excavation-cluster concentration",
        "genre and institutional-context composition",
        "chronological composition"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Using findspot, date, object type, and inscription-category metadata, first calculate equal-weighted site shares rather than inscription-weighted province shares. Then compare West and East after standardizing to common date-by-genre-by-object-type strata, reporting both the adjusted gap and how many provinces cross the 5% threshold.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if equal site weighting or compositional standardization causes substantial overlap between the groups or moves many provinces across 5%, while the unadjusted inscription-weighted result remains separated."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
