---
conjecture: r3-b1-09
family: grok
model: "Grok 4.5 expert (chat paste-back via orchestrator window)"
received: 2026-08-06
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 2
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "Each source's exact-precision rate is kept stable by the continued operation of the same fixed dating protocols or automated date-extraction rules that were used to produce the current baseline, rather than by any deep property of the underlying cataloguing tradition or instrument.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "As long as new records continue to be processed by the identical dating rules (or the same human teams following the same conventions), the exact-precision share will remain inside +/-15 pp of the registered rates for each of the eight sources, matching the training variation across sources and any future growth within them.",
      "named_confounds": ["cataloguing practice for date precision", "automated or rule-based dating pipeline consistency"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Identify successive ingestion or update cohorts within each source (by timestamp or project phase) and compute the exact-precision rate separately for early versus late cohorts; also, if possible, apply any documented dating rules to a sample of raw undated descriptive text and measure the resulting precision rate. Compare cohort rates and rule-derived rates against the registered baselines.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If late cohorts or rule re-applications produce rates that stay locked to the baseline while independent scholarly dating of the same material yields different precision rates, this favors the rival (fixed-protocol artifact); if rates drift with new material or match independent dating, this favors the proposed tradition-instrument mechanism."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The wide cross-source range of exact-precision rates is produced by differences in the proportion of already-dated or easily-datable material that each catalogue preferentially selects for inclusion, not by differences in how each project chooses to assign precision once a record is selected.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Sources that select heavily from dated or colophon-rich corpora will show high exact rates (e.g., the 72.53% flagged case), while sources that include more undated or range-only material will show low rates; continued selection under the same criteria will keep each source's rate stable inside its band as it grows.",
      "named_confounds": ["selection effects in what got catalogued", "survival or preservation bias toward dated material in certain collections"],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For each source, restrict to a matched subset of manuscripts that are independently known (via external bibliographies) to possess a secure single-year date versus those known only by range or undated; recompute the exact-precision rate inside the 'known-secure' and 'known-range' strata and measure whether the original cross-source rate differences collapse.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "If the exact-precision rates become statistically similar across sources once restricted to matched known-secure or known-range strata, this favors the rival (selection of already-dated material); if large rate differences persist even inside the matched strata, this favors the proposed source-specific cataloguing-tradition mechanism."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
