---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-18
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: "Second presentation (first round's copy grabbed 16's reply). Both rivals target the transcription-convention layer, neither computable on held data."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "Scholarly publication and subsequent entry into databases such as EDH preferentially select fragmentary, incomplete or restored inscriptions for detailed transcription, while complete or lightly damaged texts are under-represented; the catalogue is therefore systematically enriched for records that contain square brackets, producing a high density floor across all provinces.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "The selection operates on the published source material underlying the fixed EDH catalogue rather than on any particular alphabetical partition, so every province meeting the 100-row threshold exhibits a bracket density well above 35 percent in both the training and holdout sets.",
"named_confounds": [
"selection effects in what got published and catalogued",
"publication bias favoring fragmentary or restored texts"
],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "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.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If the total-recovery samples show substantially lower rates of brackets or physical loss than the EDH figures, the result favours catalogue-enrichment bias over the claim that routine ancient damage alone drives the floor."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "Modern editorial and encoding conventions in the printed corpora and in EDH itself systematically mark even minor uncertainties, restorations of common formulae, or incomplete readings with square brackets as a matter of house style, generating high bracket densities that are only loosely coupled to the actual frequency of ancient physical damage.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "These transcription conventions are applied uniformly across the pan-provincial source material of the fixed catalogue, so every eligible province in both alphabetical halves displays a density at or above the 35 percent floor.",
"named_confounds": [
"editorial house-style over-application of brackets",
"data-entry and encoding practice in EDH and source editions",
"transcription convention independent of physical damage rate"
],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "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.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If a substantial fraction of brackets mark non-physical uncertainties or if physical-loss rates fall well below the observed bracket densities, the result favours modern editorial over-marking over the ancient-damage mechanism."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
