# QUINCUNX rival dischargeability audit — EDB ingest (2026-08-09)

**STATUS: READ-ONLY INVENTORY. No rival test was executed. No verdict on any
conjecture or rival changes as a result of this document.** Where a specific
number appears below (EDB field coverage, EDH comparanda counts), it comes from
an aggregate `COUNT`/`GROUP BY` query against already-landed data — inspecting
what exists, never running a rival's own discriminating test to a conclusion.
Execution, if any of this is acted on, happens under a frozen protocol after
countersignature, per the task brief.

**Scope.** Every rival from the Popper/QUINCUNX rivals stage that stands at
**RIVAL-LIVE** or **NOT-COMPUTABLE** as of the tranche-4 follow-up
countersignature (2026-08-07) — across both batches, both model families
(codex/GPT = Family A, grok/Grok = Family B) — assessed against what
**EDB (Epigraphic Database Bari)**, ingested 2026-08-09 under source slug
`edb` (`apps/scriptome/services/edb_census.py`), actually contains.

**Inputs read in full:** `ADJUDICATION_DRAFT_tranche{1,2,3}_20260806.md`,
`ADJUDICATION_DRAFT_tranche4_familyA_20260807.md` (including its
countersignature and its own follow-up/second-countersignature sections); every
file in `r2-edh-b1/{codex,grok}/` (38 files) and `r3-b1/{codex,grok}/` (48
files); the corresponding `evidence/*.md` blocks; `edb_census.py`'s full module
docstring and field-resolution code. Live EDB rows and aggregate counts queried
2026-08-09 against `scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id = (SELECT id ...
WHERE slug='edb')` (40,760 rows) and cross-referenced against EDH (`slug='edh'`,
81,855 rows).

---

## 0. EDB's actual data surface — measured, not assumed

Everything below is a direct aggregate query against the 40,760 landed EDB
rows (2026-08-09), used throughout this audit as the ground truth for what EDB
can and cannot supply.

| Field | Coverage | Shape |
|---|---:|---|
| `language_code` | 100.00% (40,760/40,760) | `la` 36,789 (90.28%) · `grc` 3,445 (8.45%) · `la, grc` (bilingual) 526 (1.29%). Non-Latin (grc+bilingual) = 3,971 = **9.74%**. |
| `date` (notBefore/notAfter) | 68.53% (27,934/40,760) | Century buckets (`date_start`÷100): 1st–2nd c. (buckets 0–1) = **53 rows = 0.19% of dated**; 3rd–4th c. (buckets 2–3) = 24,280 = **86.9% of dated**; 5th–7th c. = 3,565 = 12.8%. Precision: `exact` 1,657 (4.1% of all/5.9% of dated) · `range` 26,277 (64.5%/94.1%) · `unknown` 12,826. |
| `origin_place` / `title_parsed_site` | 88.0% site-specific (35,847/40,760); 100% resolve to somewhere in Rome | **95 distinct values total** — 94 named catacombs (e.g. "Coem. Cyriacae ad s.Laurentium" 3,874, "Coem. Callisti pars inferior" 2,681) + the generic fallback "Rome" (4,913). **Zero non-Rome findspots exist.** No coordinates (lat/lon) anywhere. |
| `modern_location.settlement` | 51.6% populated (19,999+2 blank-string edge cases /40,760≈49.2% non-blank per raw scan) | "Roma" 18,999 (46.6%) dominates; remainder mostly other Italian towns (Napoli, Urbino, Firenze, Anagni…); per the module docstring, 731 records (1.8%) sit in non-Italian modern museums (Baltimore, Oxford, Sydney). Modern custody location only — never used for `origin_place`. |
| `monument_type` | 100.00% | 13 values: Tafel/tablet 31,311 (76.8%) · ignoratur 3,531 · arenatum 2,625 · Mur (wall) 1,856 · Ziegel (brick/tile) 866 · Sarkophag 482 · Mosaik 39 · Architekturteil 22 · **Instrumentum domesticum 10** · **Stele 9** · Urne 3 · Altar 3 · Cippus 3. |
| `material` | 100.00% | 9 values: Marmor (marble) 31,833 (78.1%) · ignoratur 3,531 · arenatum 2,625 · tectorium (plaster) 1,602 · opus latericium 866 · tectorium induens sepulchrum 245 · musivum 39 · ceterum 10 · Kalkstuff 9. |
| `genre` (`keywords/term`) | **100.00%** (40,760/40,760) | Sepulcralis (funerary) 38,950 = **95.6%**. Remainder: "tit. a viatore scriptus devotionis causa" 1,002 · Ignoratur 379 · dedicatorius 125 · Akklamation 105 · "in artis operib." 78 · Honorific 55 · Weihinschrift 52 · Bauinschrift 13 · Terminatio agrorum 1. |
| `religious_iconography` | 10.5% (4,275/40,760) | 15 values, all explicitly Christian (chi-rho 2,684; Monogr. Christi variants; Crux Immissa/Gammata/Decussata; Alpha-et-Omega). No pagan-era analogue exists or could exist — the whole corpus is Christian-scoped by the deposit's own remit. |
| `facsimile` (real image URL) | 15.1% (6,154/40,760) | Actual asset references, not a status label — see §B.5. |
| `tm_id` (Trismegistos) | 98.09% (39,984/40,760) | See §C. |
| `execution` (writing technique) | ~92.4% (37,700/40,760 non-null-ish, dominated by Insculptus 31,697 [carved] + Exaratus 2,702 [painted] + Scariphatus 1,581 + Pictus 1,032) | All techniques applied to *stone/plaster/mosaic* objects — no papyrus, wood, textile, or other non-lapidary medium exists in this corpus. |

**The two facts that gate almost everything below:** EDB is (1) **one city**
(Rome — 95 site names, all catacombs or "Rome" itself; zero coordinates, zero
other provinces) and (2) **one religious/chronological/genre slice**
(Christian, peaking 3rd–4th c. CE, 95.6% funerary by its own `genre` field).
EDH's 19 surviving `r2-edh-b1` rivals are overwhelmingly about **cross-province
variation** across a **pagan-and-Christian, empire-wide, 1st–7th-c.** corpus.
A single-city, single-religion, late-peaking corpus cannot supply cross-province
comparanda by construction, no matter how good its internal fields are — this
is the load-bearing constraint behind most verdicts in Part A.1.

---

## Methodology note — a disclosed gap in the source material (read this before the roster)

Cross-checking the tranche-4 (Family A) prose sections and closing tables
against the actual archive files (`r2-edh-b1/codex/*.md`, `rivals_parsed: 3`
in every file's frontmatter except -13, which has 2) turned up a **recurring,
systematic shortfall**: for a majority of `r2-edh-b1` conjectures, tranche-4's
own detailed write-up and closing summary table discuss only **two** of
codex's three archived rivals, and — in several cases (02, 03, 06, 09, 11, 12,
19 confirmed directly; likely more) — the "r1" it discusses is described in
language that matches **Grok's** r1 mechanism far more closely than any of
codex's own three archived mechanisms, while one of codex's genuinely distinct
archived rivals (frequently its own "r3") is not visibly adjudicated anywhere
in tranche 4's prose. Tranche 4's own top-of-document arithmetic check ("124
rivals actually parsed... every rival in every file is adjudicated below") was
a **file-level frontmatter count**, not a per-rival adjudication-completeness
check, and the two are not the same claim — the first is true; the second, on
inspection, is not, for a meaningful minority of `r2-edh-b1` items. This is
reported here as its own finding (§E.2), not silently smoothed over.

**Consequence for this roster:** per the rivals-stage's own standing rule
("NOT-COMPUTABLE converts to LIVE, never to REFUTED" — i.e. an undischarged
rival defaults to LIVE, it is never dropped for lack of adjudication), every
rival in the archive that I could not match to an **explicit, substance-
verified** REFUTED/DEFECTIVE finding in tranche 3 or tranche 4 is **included**
below as LIVE, tagged `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]` where relevant. This
means the roster below is in places **longer** than tranche 4's own "40 LIVE" /
"87 LIVE" tallies would suggest. This does not change any conjecture's grade —
grades are unaffected either way, since every conjecture already carries at
least one cleanly-LIVE rival — it only means this inventory of *what still
needs external data* is more complete than the prior pass's own count implies.
For Family B (Grok, tranches 1–3), no such gap was found: Grok mints exactly
two rivals per conjecture (or zero, at -13), and every one is individually,
explicitly adjudicated in tranches 1–3's own prose with no unmatched residue.

**Verbatim discipline.** Every `discriminating_test` quote below is copied
character-for-character from the rival's own archive file
(`r2-edh-b1/{codex,grok}/<id>.md` or `r3-b1/{codex,grok}/<id>.md`), not from
tranche 3/4's own paraphrase, per the task's standing rule that the registered
test text is the contract.

**Verdict key:**
- **DISCHARGEABLE-WITH-EDB** — EDB's fields supply what the test names, in full.
- **PARTIALLY** — EDB is the right *type* of data (an independent epigraphic
  corpus) but is scope-limited (single-city / Christian-only / late-peaking) in
  a way that blocks full discharge; the usable part is specified.
- **NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB is the wrong *kind* of instrument for this specific
  test (non-epigraphic demographic/GIS data, human expert labor, EDH's own
  records re-examined, a self-contained test already run on held EDH fields).

---

# PART A — THE ROSTER

## A.1 — r2-edh-b1 (EDH / Roman inscriptions), the batch EDB was ingested for

*Conjectures 01, 04, 08 [sic — see NB], 34 carry no LIVE/NOT-COMPUTABLE rival
(01 does — see below) and are skipped; r2-edh-b1's combined-grade table has
19/19 at INTERPOLATION-ONLY, so 18 of 19 conjectures appear below (only -04
lands STRENGTHENED on both families with zero live rivals).*

### r2-edh-b1-01 — Top-5 holdout provinces hold ≥45% of the total

*Registered mechanism: uneven modern excavation/recovery concentrates
catalogued inscriptions in a handful of provinces.*

All 5 rivals across both families are LIVE, all NOT-COMPUTABLE (tranche 3/4's
"single sharpest, cleanest confirmation... of EDH holds no comparandum of any
kind" finding).

- **codex-r1** — *mechanism:* real ancient production-intensity differences
  (urbanization, military, admin) drive concentration, not recovery effort.
  > **Test:** "For every province, assemble independent estimates of ancient
  > population, urbanized area, military installations, and major
  > administrative centers, plus a measure of modern archaeological field
  > effort. Model inscription counts using both ancient-production and
  > modern-effort covariates."
  *Needs:* ancient demographic/urbanization/military survey data + modern
  field-effort proxy. **NOT-WITH-EDB** — this is population/urbanization
  data, not epigraphic content; EDB (or any second inscription corpus)
  structurally cannot supply it.

- **codex-r2** — *mechanism:* differential physical survival (stone
  availability, soil chemistry, reuse, quarrying) concentrates extant stock.
  > **Test:** "Combine EDH records by material, object type, fragmentation,
  > and recovery context with independent provincial preservation proxies
  > such as climate, soil chemistry, historical stone reuse, and quarrying."
  *Needs:* geological/preservation survey data. **NOT-WITH-EDB** — same
  reason; this is environmental-science data, not a second epigraphic corpus.

- **codex-r3** — *mechanism:* province-boundary/unit-size artifact — larger
  territorial units accumulate more finds regardless of intensity.
  > **Test:** "Using EDH findspot coordinates, replace province codes with a
  > fixed equal-area spatial grid... Also calculate inscriptions per square
  > kilometer for each province."
  *Needs:* findspot **coordinates** (confirmed absent from EDH's full 28-key
  inventory) + province area (km²). **NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB also carries no
  coordinates (`origin_place`/`title_parsed_site` are catacomb *names*, not
  lat/lon; confirmed in §0), and is one city, so "province area" is moot for it.

- **grok-r1** — *mechanism:* same as codex-r1 (ancient production vs. modern
  recovery-effort proxies).
  > **Test:** "compute the Pearson (or rank) correlation of its inscription
  > count with independent quantitative proxies for ancient production
  > potential... and, separately, with proxies for modern recovery effort."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — same reasoning as codex-r1.

- **grok-r2** — *mechanism:* province-area artifact.
  > **Test:** "Attach independent area figures (km²) to each EDH province,
  > recompute top-five shares on area-normalised densities."
  *Needs:* province area (km²) — a gazetteer/GIS fact, not an epigraphic one.
  **NOT-WITH-EDB.**

---

### r2-edh-b1-02 — No single province holds ≥30%

*Registered mechanism: the bounded counterpart of -01.* (grok-r1 — the
random-partition simulation, 99.94% of 10,000 partitions also keep the max
share under 30% — is REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA, excluded below. Tranche 4's own
"r1" discussion for codex, despite the label, reads as a restatement of
Grok's already-refuted mechanism rather than any of codex's own three
archived rivals — see Methodology note; codex's actual r1 is the
`responsible_individual` test below, discussed in tranche 4 under its own
"r2" label, and is genuinely LIVE, not refuted.)

- **codex-r1** — *mechanism:* a single large digitization or ingestion
  program dominates EDH records while distributing them across numerous
  province codes, so no single province's share reflects real concentration.
  > **Test:** "Use EDH bibliographic, contributor, accession, or
  > source-corpus metadata to assign records to identifiable ingestion or
  > collection efforts, then recompute concentration by effort rather than
  > province in each alphabetical partition."
  *Already executed*, via `responsible_individual`: top contributor
  (Feraudi) = 29.37% of the 32-province holdout, spanning 29/32 provinces —
  just under the 30% ceiling, real but not-quite-dispositive support (LIVE,
  favors, close). **NOT-WITH-EDB** — self-contained on EDH's own contributor
  metadata; not a missing-comparanda situation.

- **codex-r2** — *mechanism:* EDH's editorial workflow prioritized geographic
  breadth while incompletely ingesting the largest provincial corpora.
  > **Test:** "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." (`computable_on_held_data: false`)
  **PARTIALLY** — EDB *is* an independent, substantially-complete provincial
  inventory, but for exactly **one** of EDH's ~32 holdout provinces (Rome).
  It cannot supply "every province" the test needs; at most it lets someone
  ask whether EDH's own "Rom" count (4,393 rows) looks low against an
  independent count of Rome material — and even that comparison is
  apples-to-oranges (EDB Christian-only/3rd–8th c. vs. EDH-Rom all-period,
  all-religion). **EDR/EDCS, being multi-province, would actually answer
  this test; EDB cannot (see §D).**

- **codex-r3** — *mechanism:* temporal aggregation — different provinces
  dominated production in different periods; pooling cancels the peaks.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test:** "Partition dated EDH records into pre-specified chronological
  > bins, fractionally allocate broadly dated records across compatible
  > bins, and recompute the largest province share within each original
  > alphabetical half and time bin."
  *Needs:* nothing outside EDH's own held date fields — a self-contained
  EDH-internal recompute. **NOT-WITH-EDB.**

- **grok-r2** — *mechanism:* EDH's own multi-contributor cataloguing
  strategy structurally prevents dominance (a database-construction
  artifact).
  > **Test:** "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."
  **PARTIALLY** — identical limitation to codex-r2: EDB is "another
  epigraphic database" in the letter of the test, but covers 1 of ~32
  provinces named. EDR/EDCS candidate (§D).

---

### r2-edh-b1-03 — Heavy-tailed province-size shape recurs (≥12/32 <300 AND ≥5/32 ≥1,000)

(codex's actual r1 in the archive — production/exposure-variable differences —
is separate from tranche 4's "r1" discussion, which reuses Grok's partition-
simulation framing; both are included below since neither is refuted.)

- **codex-r1** — *mechanism:* province area/duration/population/military
  differences create unequal opportunity for inscription production.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test:** "Model inscription counts using province area, years of
  > existence, and independent estimates of ancient population, settlements,
  > or military installations as exposure variables."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — demographic/geographic exposure data, not epigraphic.

- **codex-r2** — *mechanism:* EDH's own acquisition pipeline — some
  provinces populated via large systematic corpora, others sparsely.
  > **Test:** "calculate for each province the concentration of records by
  > source corpus and compare counts among provinces with matched source
  > coverage... recompute the distribution after retaining only source
  > series applied across many provinces."
  *Already partially executed on held EDH data* (tranche 4: "contributor-
  reach data... shows the top 2 contributors touch nearly ALL provinces —
  weak, inconclusive"). **NOT-WITH-EDB** — self-contained EDH-internal test.

- **codex-r3** — *mechanism:* province categories are unequal aggregation
  units (broad labels pool many findspots; narrow ones split comparable
  material).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test:** "Reassign geolocated EDH records to equal-area spatial cells,
  > or to a single harmonized provincial map for a fixed historical period."
  *Needs:* coordinates (absent from both EDH and EDB). **NOT-WITH-EDB.**

- **grok-r1** — *mechanism:* the 65-province list is fixed and already
  heavy-tailed; any balanced partition reproduces the shape.
  *Already executed* on held EDH data (94.59% of 10,000 random partitions
  satisfy both floors jointly — Amendment-#10-adjacent). **NOT-WITH-EDB** —
  self-contained; not a missing-comparanda situation at all.

- **grok-r2** — *mechanism:* EDH's own decades-long coverage-policy
  concentration.
  > **Test:** "Compare the EDH province-size distribution against
  > independent tallies of published Roman inscriptions for the same
  > provinces (national corpora, CIL, other epigraphic databases)."
  **PARTIALLY** — same Rome-only limitation as -02's pair. EDR/EDCS
  candidate.

---

### r2-edh-b1-06 — Exact-precision dating stays ≤40% of dated rows, every province

- **codex-r1** — *mechanism:* EDH's own normalization rule reserves
  single-year values for stringent cases, converting recoverable dates to
  ranges.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test:** "Independently parse inscription transcriptions and linked
  > dating evidence for year-resolving features such as consular pairs,
  > numbered tribunician powers, or explicit calendar dates, then compare
  > those inferred years with EDH's normalized date fields."
  *Needs:* EDH's **own** transcriptions re-examined for missed precision.
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — this is about EDH's own records, not a second corpus;
  EDB's transcriptions describe different (Christian, Roman) inscriptions
  entirely and cannot re-date EDH's own stones.

- **codex-r2** — *mechanism:* differential preservation erases the
  year-resolving clauses while leaving enough for a broad date.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test:** "Classify EDH records by textual completeness, lacuna density,
  > and object condition, then estimate the exact-year rate within genre and
  > period across preservation strata."
  *Self-contained on EDH's own fields.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**

- **codex-r3** — *mechanism:* EDH under-harvests exact-date-rich genres
  (administrative/specialist corpora) relative to broadly-dated funerary
  material.
  > **Test:** "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."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — the genre this test needs (administrative/legal,
  exact-date-rich) is exactly what EDB does *not* have: EDB's own genre
  field is 95.6% `Sepulcralis` (funerary), the single genre this rival
  argues is *over*-represented in EDH already. EDB cannot supply the
  under-represented comparandum genre.

- **grok-r1** — *mechanism:* EDH's own editorial convention prefers ranges
  even where a year is knowable.
  > **Test:** "examine the original Latin (or Greek) texts and any external
  > scholarly editions to determine how often a single year is explicitly
  > stated or unambiguously recoverable."
  *Needs:* re-examination of EDH's own texts by a human scholar.
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — wrong corpus, and human labor besides.

*(grok-r2, the military-diploma type-composition finding, is LIVE-favors but
already executed on held EDH data — not included as a distinct roster row
since it needs no external comparandum; noted here for completeness.)*

**Aside, not a rival discharge:** EDB's own exact-dating rate (1,657/27,934
dated = **5.93%**) is far below even EDH's ≤40% ceiling — directionally
consistent with "exact single-year dating is intrinsically rare," which is
the *registered conjecture's* premise, not any rival's. This is not a test of
any of the four rivals above (none of them asks "does a second corpus show
the same low rate") and is offered only as context (§E.3).

---

### r2-edh-b1-07 / r2-edh-b1-08 — Genre / material vocabulary-breadth floors

**Both conjectures carry Amendment #10 (UNINFORMATIVE band): the floors are
statistically unfailable at their own registered eligibility threshold
(P(breach) = 0.000000 across every eligible province, by multinomial
simulation on EDH's own real vocabulary). This is the single cleanest
"EDB cannot possibly help" case in the whole roster: the problem is not
missing comparanda, it is that the test, as registered, carries no
discriminating power regardless of what other data exists.** All rivals
below are **NOT-WITH-EDB** for this reason, stated once rather than per row.

- **codex-07-r1 / codex-08-r1** — mechanical multinomial-sampling artifact
  (any sample ≥150/≥50 from EDH's own skewed vocabulary almost certainly
  hits 8/5 distinct values). *Already executed, decisive (P=0.000000).*
- **codex-07-r2 / codex-08-r2** — pooling settlements/centuries inflates
  diversity vs. a single coherent site-period stratum.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test (07):** "partition each eligible province into spatially compact
  > site groups and fixed temporal bands... Recompute diversity within those
  > strata."
- **codex-07-r3 / codex-08-r3** — mixing bibliographic/cataloguing-source
  batches, each narrow, whose union supplies breadth.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test (07):** "Group records by primary publication, excavation corpus,
  > or cataloguing batch... recompute genre diversity within single-source
  > strata."
- **grok-07-r1 / grok-08-r1** — same multinomial-sampling-artifact mechanism;
  *already executed, decisive.*
- **grok-07-r2 / grok-08-r2** — cataloguing-intensity artifact (provinces
  clearing the threshold got more thorough cataloguing); *already executed,
  favors.*

Every one of these is either (a) a closed statistical fact about EDH's own
vocabulary and eligibility threshold, needing no external data at all, or
(b) a request to re-slice EDH's own records by site/period/source — EDH-
internal in both cases. Acquiring EDB, EDR, or EDCS changes nothing about
whether *this specific registered floor* had any power to fail.

---

### r2-edh-b1-09 — Epitaph/votive is the plurality genre in ≥85% of eligible provinces

- **codex-r1** — *mechanism:* epitaphs are formulaic/easier to genre-type;
  restricting to typed rows manufactures the plurality.
  *Already executed* (tranche 4: blind re-typing needed, filed LIVE as
  genuinely NOT-COMPUTABLE without human labor). **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **codex-r2** — *mechanism:* a few intensively-published necropolis/import
  batches determine the plurality, not pervasive practice.
  *Already executed on held EDH findspot data, decisively REFUTED* — excluded.
- **codex-r3** — *mechanism:* funerary monuments are durable/archaeologically
  conspicuous; non-funerary texts on perishable supports are lost.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4 — see Methodology note]`
  > **Test:** "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."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB is *itself* a curated selection of already-known
  catacomb material (from ICVR), not a prospective total-recovery survey
  across multiple context types; it inherits the identical survival/
  publication-selection problem this rival is worried about, rather than
  resolving it. See the aside below.
- **grok-r1** — *mechanism:* stone epitaphs/votives survive and are recovered
  at far higher rates than perishable media (painted/wooden/temporary texts).
  > **Test:** "Compare EDH genre shares against independent tallies that
  > include non-stone or poorly surviving media (graffiti corpora, wooden-
  > tabula finds, painted inscriptions)."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB is exclusively stone/plaster/mosaic (§0's
  `material` field), the same durable-media bias this rival is testing for,
  not an escape from it.
- **grok-r2** — *mechanism:* modern cataloguing/publication historically
  prioritized funerary/votive monuments for collection.
  > **Test:** "recompute genre plurality using... independent, more
  > exhaustive local corpora (for example, regional CIL volumes or recent
  > survey publications)."
  **PARTIALLY at best, leaning NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB is independent of EDH,
  but its own 95.6% `Sepulcralis` composition reflects a corpus *scoped to
  catacombs by design* (ICVR is a funerary-inscription antiquarian
  tradition), not a broader survey that happened to also find funerary
  dominance. Citing EDB's genre skew as evidence for or against this rival
  would be circular.

**Aside, not a discharge (§E.4):** EDB's 95.6% single-genre composition is a
useful cautionary data point about how domain-scoped even a large,
independent, professionally-curated corpus can be — worth remembering before
treating EDB as a "typical Roman epigraphy" baseline for *any* future test.

---

### r2-edh-b1-11 / r2-edh-b1-12 — Frontier instrumentum domesticum / diploma presence

*(codex's actual archived r1/r2/r3 for both conjectures are all
`computable_on_held_data: true` per their own JSON flags — clustered-ingestion,
civilian-workshop, and metadata-completeness mechanisms respectively — but
tranche 4's prose only discusses two positions per conjecture, described in
language matching Grok's r1/r2 rather than codex's own three; all three
codex rivals are included below.)*

- **11-codex-r1** — clustered catalogue ingestion (a few excavated assemblages
  inflate counts without province-wide concentration).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  > **Test:** "Measure how numerator rows are distributed across findspots,
  > bibliographic sources, and normalized stamp texts. Recompute provincial
  > percentages after collapsing rows sharing a findspot, source, and
  > normalized stamp."
  *Self-contained on EDH's own findspot/bibliography fields.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **11-codex-r2** — civilian/municipal construction drives stamped brick/tile,
  not legionary supply.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  > **Test:** "Classify the stamp texts as explicitly military, explicitly
  > civilian or private, civic or imperial non-military, or indeterminate."
  *Self-contained: reclassifies EDH's own stamp texts, no external data
  named.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.** (Aside: even if it did need comparanda, EDB
  would not supply it — only 10 `Instrumentum domesticum` records total,
  0.02% of the corpus, Rome-only, Christian-context.)
- **11-codex-r3** — monument-type-completeness metadata artifact (stamped
  objects reliably typed; ordinary inscriptions left untyped in some batches).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  *Self-contained EDH-internal recompute.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **11-grok-r1 / 12-grok-r1** — modern recovery/museum-collection intensity.
  > **Test (11):** "Compare EDH instrumentum shares against independent
  > tallies of stamped bricks/tiles/pipes from regional archaeological
  > reports or museum inventories for the same provinces."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — wrong province (Raetia/Noricum, not Rome) and wrong
  genre (EDB has essentially none of this material — 10 records corpus-wide).
- **12-codex-r1** — diplomas concentrate at veteran-settlement/retirement
  zones, not active-garrison provinces.
  > **Test:** "link its dated issuing unit and recipient, where recoverable,
  > to a chronological unit-station dataset."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs a Roman-military unit-station database; EDB has
  zero military-diploma content (Christian, 3rd–8th c., post-dates the
  diploma-issuing period's peak).
- **12-codex-r2** — exposure/denominator artifact (larger catalogued corpora
  have more opportunity to contain 3 diplomas).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  *Self-contained EDH-internal recompute.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **12-codex-r3** — geographically concentrated specialist-publication batches.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  *Self-contained.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **12-grok-r1** — same as 11-grok-r1's mechanism, applied to diplomas.
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB carries no diploma-type material at all.

---

### r2-edh-b1-13 — Jireček line (Latin-West / Greek-East divide) — **the flagship case**

*Registered mechanism: the well-documented Latin-dominant-West/Greek-dominant-
East epigraphic-language boundary. Family B (Grok) explicitly declined to
mint any rival here (`no_viable_rival: true`) — the only such declaration in
the whole stage. Family A (codex) minted two anyway; r2 was subsequently
REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA by the tranche-4 follow-up's equal-site-weighting test
(2026-08-07: zero of 24 eligible provinces cross the 5% threshold under
site-weighting) and is excluded below. r1 remains the sole LIVE rival for
this conjecture.*

- **codex-r1** — *mechanism:* EDH may inherit region-by-language selection
  from its own source corpora — western provinces populated chiefly from
  Latin-focused publications, eastern from more complete Greek/bilingual
  coverage.
  > **Test (verbatim):** "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."
  > **Favors the rival 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."

  **VERDICT: PARTIALLY.**

  **What EDB supplies:** a genuinely independent, differently-sourced,
  differently-edited epigraphic corpus (Carletti/Felle/Rocco, drawing on
  ICVR — a wholly separate compilation tradition from EDH's own source
  corpora) with catacomb-level site detail for 88.0% of records — exactly
  the "site-complete epigraphic inventory" class of comparandum the test
  names, for the one city (Rome) it covers.

  **The mapping, and its limits.** Rome ("Rom" in EDH's own province
  coding, 4,393 rows) is a bona fide Western/Latin-heartland location — but
  **it is not among the conjecture's own 21 named West holdout provinces**
  (confirmed directly against the frozen scope list in tranche 4's own
  follow-up SQL: HiC, LaC, Lig, Lug, Lus, MaC, MaT, Nar, Nor, Num, PaI, PaS,
  Pic, Rae, Sar, Sam, Tra, Tri, Umb, Val, VeH — no "Rom"). So EDB cannot
  literally re-run r1's coverage-correction test on any of the 21+6 named
  provinces the registered instrument actually scores. What it *can* do is
  characterize, for Rome specifically, whether EDH's own selection looks
  anomalously Latin-only next to an independently-curated corpus of the same
  city — which bears directly on r1's mechanism (source-corpus selection
  bias), even though it is not the literal named test.

  **Characterizing the comparandum (not executing the rival's test):**
  EDH's own "Rom" subset — 4,393 rows — is **99.5% Latin** (`L` 4,371, `GL`
  bilingual 16, `G` Greek 5, `LG` 1; non-Latin = 22/4,393 = **0.50%**).
  EDB's independent Rome corpus is **90.26% Latin** (non-Latin = 3,971/40,760
  = **9.74%**) — see §0. **That is a roughly 19-fold gap in non-Latin share
  between EDH's own Rome coverage and an independently-curated corpus of the
  same city.** This is exactly the *shape* of finding r1's own criterion asks
  about ("EDH systematically omits Greek or bilingual material... at western
  sites") — for the one site where a direct comparison is possible, EDH's
  own non-Latin share is dramatically lower than an independent corpus's.
  If anything, at face value this **leans toward favoring the rival**, not
  against it — the opposite of what a reader might expect going in.

  **Caveats, stated plainly, on why this is not a discharge:** (1) Rome is
  outside the conjecture's own named scope, so this does not test the 21+6
  provinces the registered pass-condition actually counts. (2) EDB is
  Christian-only, 3rd–8th c.; EDH's "Rom" spans the whole Roman period,
  pagan and Christian — a genre/period mismatch, not a clean like-for-like
  comparison. (3) This is one city, not the "stratified sample of western
  and eastern sites" the test's own methodology calls for. (4) I have run
  no inclusion-probability model or formal coverage correction — only
  characterized the two aggregate language distributions. The actual test
  (stratified multi-site sampling, inclusion-probability estimation,
  coverage-corrected province recompute) remains for the frozen-protocol
  execution phase. **This is disclosed as a striking, EDB-enabled
  observation that bears on r1's plausibility, not as a verdict on r1
  itself or on the base conjecture.**

---

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

Both rivals, both families, are NOT-COMPUTABLE (confirmed, no reversal).

- **codex-r1** — dating-process artifact (broad/inferred dates cluster in
  early-middle Principate by binning convention).
  > **Test:** "Recompute provincial century peaks separately for inscriptions
  > with narrow, independently anchored dates... and for inscriptions dated
  > only by paleography, formula, or broad intervals."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — self-contained EDH-internal recompute; and even if it
  weren't, see below.
- **codex-r2** — catalogue-entry filter (well-studied high-imperial material
  over-represented in publication).
  > **Test:** "compare EDH entries against independent, exhaustive site
  > inventories or regional corpora that enumerate all inscribed finds."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **codex-r3** — exposure-denominator (more people/sites/construction in the
  1st–2nd c., not a higher per-capita inscribing rate).
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs demographic/construction-volume estimates.
- **grok-r1** — differential survival (early stones less often reused/
  destroyed).
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs stratigraphic dating or a total-recovery series.
- **grok-r2** — modern scholarly priority for classic-Principate material.
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs a dating-*method*/criteria field (EDH has none)
  or a total-recovery corpus.

**Why EDB categorically cannot help any of the five, quantified (§0):** the
conjecture's target window (1st–2nd c. AD) holds **53 of EDB's 27,934 dated
records — 0.19%.** EDB's own dated material is 86.9% concentrated in the
3rd–4th c. — two full centuries *after* the window this conjecture is about.
This is not a scope limitation that a query can work around; EDB simply does
not contain a meaningful sample of the period in question, by the deposit's
own remit (Christian inscriptions only begin accumulating once Christianity
is present in the epigraphic record at all). **No comparandum acquisition
targeting Christian Rome could ever help this specific conjecture** — a
pagan-era or broadly-dated Western corpus (EDCS, which is not period-gated,
would) is the only fix; see §D.

---

### r2-edh-b1-16 — Compact 6-century peak window covers ≥90% of dated rows

All three rivals from Family A and both from Family B are LIVE, and **every
one has already been executed on EDH's own held fields** — none needs
external data at all; each is **NOT-WITH-EDB** for that reason.

- **codex-r1 / grok-r1** — total-span arithmetic makes the floor near-
  automatic for provinces whose entire dated material already spans ≲6
  centuries (6/18 eligible provinces within 1 century of the window width).
- **codex-r2 / grok-r2** — dating-method/interval-censoring sensitivity;
  under a stricter both-endpoints reading, Transpadana (82.47%) and Thracia
  (85.95%) flip below the 90% floor.
- **codex-r3** — site/batch pseudoreplication; *executed in the tranche-4
  follow-up* (2026-08-07): 1 of 18 eligible provinces (Narbonensis, 89.91%)
  crosses below 90% under equal-site-weighting, recovering under the
  closely-related largest-site-exclusion variant — narrow, non-decisive,
  LIVE-FAVOURED. All computed from EDH's own `findspot_ancient`/
  `findspot_modern` and date fields.

---

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

- **codex-r1** — EDH-specific ingestion/editorial workflow, not universal
  discipline convention.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  *Self-contained on EDH's own provenance/contributor metadata.*
  **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **codex-r3** — aggregation/opportunity effect (longer texts have more
  chances to earn a bracket).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]` *Self-contained.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **grok-r1** — publication selects fragmentary/restored inscriptions for
  detailed transcription over complete ones.
  > **Test:** "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."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — EDB is itself a curated publication (ICVR-derived), not
  a total-recovery sample; it inherits the same publication-selection
  concern this rival raises rather than resolving it.
- **codex-r2** — *mechanism:* the catalogue and its underlying publications
  selectively include fragmentary/reconstructable/scholarly-editing-worthy
  inscriptions, under-representing intact or minimally informative ones —
  the same publication-selection theme as grok-r1 above, distinctly worded.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  > **Test:** "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."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — same reasoning as grok-r1: EDB is a curated selection
  (from ICVR), not the total-recovery inventory this test needs, and covers
  none of EDH's actual holdout provinces regardless.
- **grok-r2** — bracket-vs-physical-loss correspondence (editorial
  over-marking of non-physical uncertainty).
  > **Test:** "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."

  **VERDICT: PARTIALLY (weak, methodological analogy only).** EDH holds only
  a verification-*method* label (`work_status`: "checked with photo"
  35.8%/"provisional" 33.0%/"no image" 18.7%/etc. — confirmed in a live
  query) — never actual image content, so this test cannot run on EDH at
  all, with or without EDB. EDB is the one place in this whole audit that
  holds the **structurally missing piece** — real facsimile asset references
  (6,154/40,760 = 15.1%, actual URLs, not a status word) plus TEI-encoded
  Leiden-convention markup (`edition_xml_raw`, `<gap>`/`<supplied>` tags)
  that is the direct structural equivalent of EDH's bracket convention. This
  does **not** discharge this rival's literal test (nor codex-r2's, above,
  on the same publication-selection theme), which is specifically about
  *EDH's own* bracket-vs-photograph correspondence — EDB's facsimiles
  are of different (Christian, Roman) stones and cannot verify EDH's
  transcriptions. But it demonstrates the test's *method* is executable in
  principle on a corpus with real image assets, and is the clearest example
  in this audit of "what field would need to exist on EDH itself" rather
  than "what corpus would need to be acquired" — a data-model gap, not
  (only) a comparanda gap. Flagged for §D as a distinct kind of remediation.

---

### r2-edh-b1-19 — Uncertain monument-type IDs stay <25% of typed rows

- **codex-r1** — denominator-selection (ambiguous types left blank rather
  than flagged uncertain). *Already executed, decisive* (16/23 eligible
  holdout provinces flip PASS→BREACH treating untyped rows as uncertain).
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — self-contained EDH-internal recompute.
- **codex-r2** — aggregation effect (common easily-typed classes dilute
  uncertainty concentrated in rare/damaged classes).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]` *Self-contained.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **codex-r3** — province-assignment selection (poorly-documented objects
  routed to "Provincia incerta" or omitted entirely, leaving real-province
  records an easier-to-identify subset).
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]`
  > **Test:** "Link EDH records to independent excavation or museum
  > inventories that include unpublished fragments and objects with
  > uncertain findspots."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs EDH-specific unpublished/uncertain-findspot
  material, not a second corpus of different objects.
- **grok-r2** — conservative editorial threshold (uncertainty flag reserved
  for the clearest cases).
  > **Test:** "Have an independent team re-classify a stratified sample of
  > the same EDH monument-typed rows under an explicit instruction to flag
  > uncertainty more liberally."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs human re-classification of EDH's own rows.

---

### r2-edh-b1-20 — Monument-type documentation coverage heterogeneous

- **codex-r1** — assemblage composition (monument-like stone vs. small
  finds/instrumenta) drives coverage, not cataloguing depth.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]` *Self-contained.* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **codex-r3** — real preservation differences determine physical
  typeability.
  `[not distinctly adjudicated in T4]` *Self-contained (blind-coding
  proposal against EDH's own object descriptions).* **NOT-WITH-EDB.**
- **grok-r1** — differential survival of type-diagnostic physical features.
  > **Test:** "Correlate province-level type-coverage rates with independent
  > archaeological indicators of monument completeness."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs condition-assessment data for EDH's own objects.

*(codex-r2/grok-r2, the `last_update`-era batch/legacy-source mechanism, is
LIVE-favors but already executed on EDH's own held `last_update` field — not
listed as a distinct row; noted for completeness.)*

---

### r2-edh-b1-23 — Transpadana's Cisalpine stele tradition (≥20% stele share)

*(codex-r2 and codex-r3 were REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA in the tranche-4 follow-up
[2026-08-07: funerary-only restriction and chronological standardization
both leave the excess intact] — excluded below.)*

- **codex-r1** — regional cataloguing convention (contributors label generic
  slabs as "stele" more readily for northern-Italian material).
  *Already executed, mixed/inconclusive* via `responsible_individual` proxy.
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — self-contained.
- **grok-r2** — differential survival/geology (Po-valley depositional
  conditions preferentially preserve upright steles).
  > **Test:** "Compare stele shares in Aemilia and Transpadana against those
  > of other provinces that share similar geology or burial environments...
  > and against provinces inside the zone that have different local
  > lithologies."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs geological/preservation-condition survey data for
  northern Italy, plus wrong-province stele content: EDB carries only 9
  `Stele` records total, all in Rome, none in Cisalpine Gaul.

---

### r2-edh-b1-24 — Date-range width averages 20–250 years, every province

All three rivals per family are LIVE, and **all are already executed on
EDH's own held fields** — none needs external comparanda.

- **codex-r1 / grok-r1** — denominator-selection (only moderately-
  constrained pieces get a range; wide-uncertainty material excluded as
  "unknown"). *Executed:* Pearson r = −0.6152 between a province's
  `unknown`-share and its average range-width.
- **codex-r2 / grok-r2** — data-entry template/round-number-default
  encoding. *Executed:* 5 specific widths (99, 149, 199, 299, 49) hold 56.7%
  of all 56,909 range-precision rows.
- **codex-r3** — shared-dating-decision pseudoreplication (site/publication
  clusters share one copied interval). *Executed in the tranche-4 follow-up*:
  a single Numidia (site, exact-interval) cluster holds 70.8% of that
  province's range rows; collapsing it drops the mean 55% (85.84→38.31yr) —
  substantial, but the [20,250] band is never threatened anywhere.

**NOT-WITH-EDB across the board** — every mechanism here is about EDH's own
data-entry/encoding conventions, testable and tested entirely on held fields.

---

### r2-edh-b1-25 — Photographic-documentation coverage heterogeneous

*(grok-r2, the `last_update`-era proxy, was REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA in tranche
3 — excluded below.)*

- **codex-r1** — inconsistent "no image" marker use across data-entry
  cohorts (verified image-asset presence needed, not just the label).
  > **Test:** "For every eligible record, independently determine whether a
  > resolvable image, thumbnail, or media link actually exists."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs verified image assets **for EDH's own objects**;
  EDB's own facsimiles (§0, 15.1% coverage) are of different stones and
  cannot verify whether an EDH record's marked absence is accurate.
- **codex-r3** — present-repository/museum policy, not province.
  *Executed in the tranche-4 follow-up* (2026-08-07): `present_location`
  populated on only 5.67% of Numidia's rows (the decisive >40% extreme),
  none of it in an adequately-sized multi-province repository group —
  RIVAL-LIVE-INCONCLUSIVE, decisive case unreachable. **NOT-WITH-EDB** — this
  is a sparsity problem in EDH's own `present_location` field for one
  specific province; EDB's own `modern_location` field (which does cover
  similar ground — repository vs. ancient origin, see §0) describes
  different objects and cannot fill EDH's Numidia gap.
- **grok-r1** — inherited unevenness of illustration in EDH's own original
  paper sources.
  > **Test:** "compare EDH 'no image' rates against the proportion of
  > inscriptions that already carried published photographs in the major
  > source corpora used by EDH."
  **NOT-WITH-EDB** — needs illustration-density data for EDH's *own* 20th-
  century paper source publications, a bibliographic-history question EDB
  cannot answer for a different corpus's sources.

---

## A.2 — r3-b1 (NAMAMI / India manuscripts) — for completeness

**Headline verdict, stated once: every rival below is NOT-WITH-EDB.** EDB is
Christian/Latin-Greek epigraphy of Rome, 3rd–8th c. CE, on stone/plaster/
mosaic. NAMAMI's rivals are about Indian manuscript-catalogue harvest
architecture, institutional cataloguing practice, and South Asian
language/tradition routing — a different medium (manuscript vs. inscription),
different continent, different script families, different millennium in most
cases, and a wholly different data-generating process (a live government
portal vs. a frozen epigraphic deposit). There is no field-level or
domain-level overlap for EDB to supply. Acquiring EDR/EDCS would not change
this either (§D) — those are also Roman/Mediterranean epigraphy. Rows below
are kept compact; each still quotes the rival's own test verbatim and names
what it actually needs, per the roster's own discipline, but the mapping
reasoning is the boilerplate above unless something is genuinely different
(chiefly: several of these need human paleographic/codicological labor
rather than any dataset at all — flagged `[HUMAN]`).

*Conjectures 01, 08, 32, 33 (Family A only — Family B's r2 still gates the
combined grade), 34 (INTEGRITY-VERIFIED, exempt from mechanism grading), 35,
40 carry zero LIVE/NOT-COMPUTABLE rivals from at least one family and are
abbreviated or skipped per the notes below; 31 (the "zombie") has all five
rivals REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA and is skipped entirely (mentioned for context
only: the registered "unique exception" wording is independently dead
regardless of any rival, per tranches 1–2's own composite ruling).*

| Rival | Conjecture (one line) | Mechanism | Discriminating test (verbatim) | Needs | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r3-b1-03‑codex‑r1 | Binding-waste fragment mean date, distinct from Genizah | Informative missingness in currently-undated Genizah fragments | "draw source-stratified random samples from the currently undated fragments, have them dated blindly using one common protocol" | Paleographic labor `[HUMAN]` | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-03‑codex‑r3 | " | Compositional confound (region/genre/document-type) | "define strata for region, language or script, textual genre, and document-versus-book status; restrict to strata represented in both source families" | No shared vocabulary across MPO/Fragmentarium/Ktiv | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-03‑grok‑r1 | " | Dating-completeness/selection artifact | "Compute the mean cataloged date for the undated... remainder in each source after applying any available secondary dating proxies" | Secondary dating proxies for Hebrew/Latin fragments | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-03‑grok‑r2 | " | Geographic/cultural production-chronology difference | "Stratify each source's dated fragments by script language, known place of origin, or paleographic region" | Shared populated region/script stratum (none exists) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-04‑codex‑r1 | Korea (korcis) medium_class mix stable ±10pp | Stock-flow dilution by the 499k-row legacy stock | "For each future extension, identify genuinely new row IDs and compute category shares separately for the marginal batch" | Future korcis landings (self-contained) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-04‑codex‑r3 | " | Record-splitting/parent-work-family expansion | "Cluster rows into parent works or record families using explicit parent/work identifiers" | korcis `normalized_shelfmark` (99.87% blank) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-04‑grok‑r2 | " | Fixed/rule-based classifier constant by construction | "apply them to a held-out sample of raw descriptive text or images from new records" | Classifier internals or independent ground-truth labels `[HUMAN]` | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-05‑codex‑r1 | ContainedText-per-manuscript ratio is source-specific | Cataloguing-depth/segmentation-rule differences | "have source-blinded cataloguers re-segment their underlying descriptions using one common rule" | Blind recataloguing labor `[HUMAN]` | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-05‑codex‑r3 | " | Differential collection scope/survival | "Construct a new, source-independent probability sample or census of physical manuscripts" | A new independent sample (not held) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-05‑grok‑r1 | " | Cataloguing-depth artifact (row-splitting rules) | "count the number of contained-text rows actually created by each source and compare against the number of distinct texts attested in external scholarly catalogues" | External scholarly catalogues per manuscript | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-05‑grok‑r2 | " | Selection effect (which manuscripts enter each catalogue) | "Restrict each source to a matched subset of manuscripts... independently known to be single-work versus multi-work" | External bibliographies/colophon evidence | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-06‑codex‑r2 | FANKHA institutional-attribution completeness (69.86%) | Persian-name/entity-resolution lookup-table gap | "Reinspect or re-harvest the raw institution fields for rows currently classified as unresolved... resolve them using... Persian-aware normalization" | *Already executed, decisive-looking* — self-contained FANKHA field | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-07‑codex‑r2 | SfarData ≥2-scribe-attestation share (5.38%) | Composite-codex/multi-unit denominator | "Obtain folio-range or codicological-unit assignments for every attestation, split composite records into physical production units" | Folio/codicological-unit reconstruction (not held) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-07‑codex‑r3 | " | Mandatory-primary/optional-secondary workflow | "estimate multi-attestation rates by contributor, collection, ingest batch, and cataloguing interface" | *Executed — degenerate*, SfarData is a single bulk-harvest day | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-07‑grok‑r1 | " | Under-recording (only primary scribe entered) | "obtain independent paleographic or codicological descriptions... and count how many distinct hands are actually present" | Independent codicological re-examination `[HUMAN]` | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-07‑grok‑r2 | " | Selection into which manuscripts get scribe-cataloguing depth | "Compare the multi-attestation rate among manuscripts that entered the catalogue in different chronological waves" | *Executed — degenerate*, no wave signal exists | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-09‑codex‑r1 | Exact-precision-dating rate is source-specific and stable | Manuscript-type-mix composition, not tradition | "stratify or reweight all sources to a common distribution of document type, genre, century, collection type" | Shared cross-source genre taxonomy (none exists) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-09‑codex‑r2 | " | Common ingestion/date-normalization pipeline | "Draw stratified samples of records classified as exact, ranged, and undated from every source; compare... with source-native date fields" | *Partial context only* — bespoke per-source parsers | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-09‑codex‑r3 | " | Denominator/duplication (record-per-object mismatch) | "Cluster rows by physical-object identifier, shelfmark, institution, and parent-child relationships" | *Executed, mixed* — MPO shelfmark clustering | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-09‑grok‑r1 | " | Fixed automated dating-rule-consistency artifact | "compute the exact-precision rate separately for early versus late cohorts" | *Executed, mixed* — korcis day-2 cohort signal | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-09‑grok‑r2 | " | Differential selection of already-dated material | "restrict to a matched subset of manuscripts... independently known... to possess a secure single-year date" | External bibliography-based dating-certainty classification | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-16‑codex‑r1 | NAMAMI distinct-institution density ceiling (103/1,000) | Institution-name entity-resolution artifact | "Construct preregistered holder identities by linking normalized institution names with locality, address, contact... metadata" | *Executed, leans against* — light normalization only | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-16‑codex‑r2 | " | Survey/coverage undercounting of small holdings | "build an independent holder census through field enumeration or comprehensive administrative and scholarly rosters" | External institutional census `[HUMAN]`-adjacent | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-16‑codex‑r3 | " | Record-granularity/duplicate denominator inflation | "Cluster records into probable physical manuscripts using accession or shelfmark identifiers" | manus_code/shelfmark linkage (only on 11,974-row pilot) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-16‑grok‑r1 | " | Portal-side normalization/dedup artifact | "recompute distinct-institution density using only exact string matches versus... fuzzy or authority-controlled matching" | *Executed, leans against* — same normalization test | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-16‑grok‑r2 | " | Portal registration/authority-list ceiling | "count the number of distinct institutions authorized for each state" | NAMAMI's own institution-authority list (not held) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-17‑codex‑r1/r2/r3 | Institution-holdings rank–count log–log slope in [-3.0,-0.3] | Preferential-cataloguing-depth / record-unitization / institution-class mixture | e.g. "Obtain independent inventory totals for a stratified sample of large, medium, and small institutions" | External capture-fraction data; manus_code linkage; a from-scratch institution-type taxonomy — none held | NOT-WITH-EDB (all 3) |
| r3-b1-18‑codex‑r1 | Small single-city UT beats every large state's top-1 share | Contributor/digitization-campaign coverage bias | "Construct an independent census of manuscript-holding institutions in each territory" | External institutional census | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-18‑codex‑r2 | " | Umbrella-institution entity-splitting | "Audit the dominant institution's records using accession series, collection names, department or branch fields" | Dept/branch/address sub-fields (don't exist) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-18‑codex‑r3 | " | Flagship absolute-size outlier vs. landscape breadth | "measure the number of independently operating manuscript institutions, each institution's absolute holdings" | *Executed, mixed* — Delhi/Puducherry comparison | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-18‑grok‑r1 | " | Facet-boundary/administrative-classification artifact | "recompute top-1 institution share inside those single-city sub-regions" | City/district sub-geography (field doesn't exist) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-21‑codex‑r1 | Sanskrit-tradition umbrella floor (>20%) | Asymmetric taxonomy breadth (routing-rule artifact) | "blind the portal's tradition label, and independently recode... using a symmetric mutually exclusive taxonomy" | Blind symmetric recoding `[HUMAN]` | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-21‑codex‑r3 | " | Selective repository participation | "Construct an external census of manuscript repositories and inventory totals" | External repository census | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-21‑grok‑r2 | " | Institutional collecting-priority selection effect | "Obtain independent published inventories or secondary catalogues of the largest institutions" | External inventories | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-23‑codex‑r1 | "unrecognised evidence" basis never exceeds 45% | Pre-portal publication/ingest filtering | "Obtain complete accession registers or digitization queues for repositories represented in NAMAMI" | External accession registers | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-23‑codex‑r3 | " | Pre-normalization payload/template feature-leakage | "Recover pre-normalization import payloads or record-version histories" | A pre-display data layer (does not exist to us) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-23‑grok‑r2 | " | Selective institutional cataloguing thoroughness | "obtain any available external inventories or secondary descriptions" | External cataloguing-thoroughness data | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-24‑codex‑r1 | "unrecognised evidence" (curation-gap) basis never exceeds 35% | Unicode/script-of-entry formatting artifact | "Reclassify every nonblank unmatched value after Unicode normalization... without adding any new language or script concept" | Special class: **RIVAL-VINDICATED-AND-REMEDIED** — mechanism was true and has since been fixed by a versioned instrument update; carries no survival credit | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-24‑codex‑r3 | " | Time-of-harvest/schema-migration confound | "re-walk all training and holdout states and join records to the retained harvests by stable identifier" | Historical raw-payload snapshots by harvest date (not retained) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-25‑codex‑r2 | Genuinely-blank-field routing basis never exceeds 15% | Duplicate-record/shelfmark denominator inflation | "Cluster records into unique physical holdings or catalogue entries using stable identifiers" | Shelfmark clustering (same absence as -16/-17) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-25‑codex‑r3 | " | Pre-publication selective admission | "Link published portal records to complete institutional accession registers, rejected-ingest logs" | External accession/rejected-ingest logs | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-25‑grok‑r1 | " | List-page harvest/extraction artifact | "retrieve the corresponding detail-page or full-record views... and measure how often language or script values are actually present" | *Executed, thin* (n=1) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-25‑grok‑r2 | " | Stable minority of institutions/record types | "Identify the institutions or record-status flags that account for the majority of blank records" | *Executed, genuine split* (Bihar diffuse, Maharashtra concentrated) | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-26‑codex‑r2 | "script alone sufficient" routing basis never exceeds 2% | Denominator dilution by low-abstention institutions | "Compute the pathway share separately for each holding institution... recompute state rates using equal institution weights" | *Executed, favors* — self-contained | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-27‑codex‑r2 | "script outranks language facet" never exceeds 0.1% | Denominator dilution across specialist repositories | "Recompute the pathway share separately for every holding institution or repository within each completed state" | *Executed, favors* — self-contained | NOT-WITH-EDB |
| r3-b1-33‑grok‑r2 | Hindi-belt non-Latin institution-name fraction, cleanly separated | Portal storage/display-layer differential transliteration | "Compare the institution-name strings as returned by the portal's list or state-facet interfaces against any bulk export... or independent official directories" | Independent directories/original-entry view (not held) | NOT-WITH-EDB |

**Notes on abbreviated conjectures:**
- **r3-b1-01, -08, -35, -40** — STRENGTHENED on both families (the NAMAMI
  detail-fetch natural experiment cleanly refutes every true-absence/portal-
  suppression rival pair). Zero LIVE rivals; skipped.
- **r3-b1-17** — three codex rivals, all NOT-WITH-EDB, tabulated together
  above rather than as three separate rows given the repetitive verdict.
- **r3-b1-31** — the "zombie": all five rivals across both families land
  REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (the vernacular-dominance mechanism is real and now
  confirmed in three independent states — Odisha, Assam, Manipur — not just
  one), yet the conjecture's own registered wording (a *unique* exception)
  is independently dead per the tranche-1/2 composite ruling
  ("RIVALS-DISCHARGED/CLAIM SUPERSEDED"). No rival to assess; mentioned only
  because it is this batch's most interesting non-EDB-related finding.
- **r3-b1-32, -33 (Family A), -34** — see the tranche-4 combined table; -32
  is cleanly STRENGTHENED on all rivals both families; -33's three codex
  rivals are all REFUTED (only grok-r2, tabulated above, keeps it at
  INTERPOLATION-ONLY); -34 is INTEGRITY-VERIFIED, a bookkeeping check exempt
  from mechanism grading by Amendment #9 (both rivals per family are
  DEFECTIVE-as-not-distinct, not LIVE).

---

# PART B — Ranked shortlist: the 3–5 most valuable tests

**Honest framing first.** This audit found **zero** rivals that EDB fully
discharges in the clean DISCHARGEABLE-WITH-EDB sense, and only a small number
of genuine PARTIALLY cases. The reason is structural, not a matter of missing
a clever query: EDB is one city and one late-antique religious slice, while
`r2-edh-b1`'s surviving rivals are almost entirely about **cross-province**
variation across a **pagan-and-Christian, empire-wide, all-period** corpus. A
single-city instrument cannot supply multi-province comparanda by
construction. Ranked by genuine value (would move a grade, settle a flagship
claim, or usefully bound the acquisition case for EDR/EDCS):

1. **r2-edh-b1-13-r1 (Jireček line).** The one case where EDB's data actually
   moved the needle on something interesting: an independently-curated
   corpus of the same city EDH itself covers shows a ~19-fold higher
   non-Latin share (9.74% vs. 0.50%) than EDH's own Rome subset. This
   doesn't discharge the rival (Rome isn't one of the 21 named West
   provinces) but it is exactly the *shape* of evidence the rival's own
   mechanism predicts, on the flagship conjecture of the whole batch — the
   one Grok itself declined to challenge. Recommend this be the first
   candidate for the frozen-protocol execution phase: even though it cannot
   settle -13 by itself, a full multi-site version of this comparison
   (were EDR/EDCS available for the other 20 West provinces) is the
   highest-leverage single test in the roster.
2. **r2-edh-b1-18-r2 (bracket-vs-photograph correspondence).** Not
   dischargeable, but the clearest illustration of *what kind* of gap this
   is: EDH lacks the field (real image assets), not just the comparandum.
   Worth surfacing to whoever owns EDH's own ingest, independent of any
   corpus-acquisition decision.
3. **r2-edh-b1-14 (epigraphic-habit peak).** Negative but valuable: EDB's
   own date distribution (0.19% of dated records fall in the 1st–2nd c.)
   proves quantitatively that *no* amount of clever querying against EDB
   will ever help this conjecture — the fix is acquiring period-unrestricted
   comparanda (EDCS), not re-reading EDB more cleverly. Worth stating
   explicitly so nobody re-litigates this later.
4. **r2-edh-b1-09/-18 family (durable-media and total-recovery bias).**
   EDB's own 95.6% single-genre, 100%-stone-and-plaster composition
   demonstrates, empirically, that even a large, professionally-curated,
   independent corpus inherits the exact survival/publication-selection
   bias these rivals worry about — a genuinely useful negative finding
   about what "independent" does and doesn't buy you, worth carrying into
   how future comparanda-acquisition decisions get evaluated.
5. **r2-edh-b1-02/-03-r2 pair (province-concentration vs. an independent
   corpus).** The cleanest, most literal instances of "this test wants
   exactly what EDB is (an independent epigraphic database) but at a scope
   EDB cannot supply (many provinces)" — the sharpest, most quantifiable
   argument for why EDR/EDCS specifically (not EDB, and not "a better query
   against EDB") is the correct acquisition target. See §D.

---

# PART C — EDB–EDH independence check

**Recommended, not run**, per the task's explicit instruction. Both EDH and
EDB are EAGLE (Europeana network of Ancient Greek and Latin Epigraphy)
member-project outputs, and both carry Trismegistos (TM) identifiers:
EDB's `raw->>'tm_id'` is populated on **98.09%** of records (39,984/40,760);
EDH's `raw->>'trismegistos_uri'` is populated on **93.87%** (76,835/81,855).
Coverage is high on both sides, so a join is well-powered if run.

**Why this matters before using EDB as "independent" comparanda anywhere,
including the -13 aside in Part B.1:** if a material fraction of EDB's
40,760 Christian-Rome inscriptions are the *same physical objects* as
records already in EDH (e.g. because EDH separately catalogued some Roman
Christian material and both projects cross-referenced the same stone via
Trismegistos), then using EDB to "independently" check an EDH-derived
pattern would be circular — not a second opinion, but the same underlying
observation counted twice.

**Specified check (do not run without countersignature):**
```sql
-- EDB's raw TM ids are strings like "632004"; EDH's trismegistos_uri is a
-- full URI (e.g. "https://www.trismegistos.org/text/632004") -- extract the
-- trailing numeric id from EDH's URI and join on it.
WITH edb_tm AS (
  SELECT raw->>'tm_id' AS tm_id FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
  WHERE source_id = (SELECT id FROM scriptome_cataloguesource WHERE slug='edb')
    AND raw->>'tm_id' IS NOT NULL
),
edh_tm AS (
  SELECT regexp_replace(raw->>'trismegistos_uri', '.*/(\d+)/?$', '\1') AS tm_id
  FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
  WHERE source_id = (SELECT id FROM scriptome_cataloguesource WHERE slug='edh')
    AND raw->>'trismegistos_uri' IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT count(*) AS overlap_count FROM edb_tm INNER JOIN edh_tm USING (tm_id);
```
**Prior:** likely low-to-zero overlap. EDB is explicitly Christian
inscriptions of Rome (3rd–8th c.); EDH's "Rom" subset is only 4,393 of its
81,855 rows and (per §A.1-13) is 99.5% Latin with essentially no distinctive
Christian-iconography field of its own — the two projects appear to have
divided ground by period/subject convention (EDH = the broad Heidelberg
epigraphic-habit corpus; EDB = the specialist Christian-catacomb corpus) more
than they overlap. But "appears to" is exactly the kind of unverified prior
this check exists to replace with a number. **Recommend running this before
any EDB-derived finding (including the -13 aside above) is cited as fully
independent evidence**, and disclosing the overlap count and its share of
each corpus alongside any future use.

Secondary, cheaper check available at the same time: EDB's `licence_target`/
`licence_statement_in_file` and EDH's own attribution fields could be
diffed for shared editor/contributor names as a second, non-TM-based
independence signal — not required, but free to add to the same pass.

---

# PART D — What this implies for acquiring EDR / EDCS

**The central number:** of the roughly 90 LIVE/NOT-COMPUTABLE `r2-edh-b1`
rivals inventoried in Part A.1, **EDB moves exactly one** (13-r1, to
PARTIALLY, with a real but scope-limited finding) and touches a second
weakly (18-r2, a data-model observation, not a comparanda one). Every other
rival that names *any* external **epigraphic** corpus at all (as distinct
from demographic, geological, or GIS data, which no epigraphic acquisition
fixes — see the "would not fix" list below) — roughly 15–18 distinct rivals
across -02, -03, -06, -09, -11, -12, -14, -18 — fails specifically because
EDB is **single-city and single-religion/period**, not because "an
independent Roman epigraphic corpus" is the wrong idea. That is precisely
EDR's and EDCS's shape:

- **EDCS** (Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss-Slaby) — the largest single digital
  corpus of Latin inscriptions, empire-wide, **not period-gated** (spans the
  full classical epigraphic-habit range, unlike EDB's post-Christianization
  start). This is the one that would unlock -14 (epigraphic-habit peak),
  since it actually covers the 1st–2nd c. AD material EDB structurally lacks.
- **EDR** (Epigraphic Database Roma) — multi-region Italian epigraphy (not
  Rome-only), covering the *classical* period pagan material EDB's Christian
  remit excludes, with province/region-level breadth EDB cannot supply. This
  is the one that would unlock the -02/-03/-09 family (cross-province
  concentration, genre-mix comparanda — NOT -01, which needs non-epigraphic
  demographic/GIS data no epigraphic database supplies, see below) and give
  -13's Jireček-line test the many-Western-province, many-Eastern-province
  spread it actually needs rather than the single out-of-scope city EDB
  offers.

**What acquiring either would unlock, counted conservatively from Part A.1:**
- -02-codex-r2 and -02-grok-r2 (the two PARTIALLY rivals out of -02's four
  live rivals), -03-grok-r2 (1 of -03's five) — need "independent tallies...
  for the same provinces" — EDR/EDCS multi-province coverage answers this
  directly; EDB cannot.
- -06-r3, -09 (grok-r1/r2, codex-r3), -18-grok-r1/codex-r2 — need independent
  local/regional corpora or non-durable-media coverage; EDR/EDCS (broader genre
  and material range than EDB's near-monoculture) partially or fully answer
  these; EDB cannot.
- -11/-12 (5 of 7 rivals naming external data) — need regional archaeological
  reports for frontier provinces (Raetia/Noricum) specifically; neither EDB
  nor EDR/EDCS supply *military* archaeological-report data, but EDCS's
  broader geographic and genre coverage would at least supply the
  instrumentum-domesticum/diploma content EDB structurally lacks (10 records
  corpus-wide) for a same-genre cross-corpus check, even if not the full
  archaeological-report comparandum the rivals literally ask for.
- -13-r1, in full — a genuinely multi-province EDR/EDCS pull (21 West + 6
  East, matching the registered scope exactly) would let the Rome-only
  aside in Part B.1 become the actual, full, literal execution of the
  rival's own test.
- -14 — 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 at all, since it is the one candidate corpus not
  period-gated toward the 3rd century and later.

**What neither EDB nor EDR/EDCS would fix**, so the acquisition case is
scoped honestly: -01 (needs demographic/GIS survey data, not more
inscriptions), -07/-08 (Amendment #10 UNINFORMATIVE bands — no comparandum
of any kind restores discriminating power to an unfalsifiable floor), and
the several rivals across -06/-18/-19/-20/-25 that need human
re-classification, EDH's own re-examined texts, or EDH-internal fields that
simply don't exist (department/branch sub-fields, dating-method-criteria
flags). **Recommend the acquisition case for EDR/EDCS be built around the
~15–18-rival count above, not oversold as fixing the whole roster** — a
meaningfully large, honestly-bounded win, not a silver bullet.

---

# PART E — Anything surprising

**E.1 — The Rome language-divergence finding (Part A.1, -13-r1).** EDH's own
"Rom" province subset shows 0.50% non-Latin inscriptions; an independently-
curated corpus of the identical city (EDB) shows 9.74% — a ~19-fold gap. This
was not expected going in, is not dispositive of anything (Rome sits outside
the conjecture's own named scope), and cuts in the direction of *favoring*
the one rival Grok itself declined to propose against the batch's flagship
claim. Recommend flagging this explicitly for whoever eventually runs -13's
frozen-protocol test, so it isn't rediscovered from scratch.

**E.2 — Tranche 4's own adjudication has a real completeness gap.**
Documented in the Methodology note above: for a majority of `r2-edh-b1`
conjectures, tranche 4's detailed prose and closing tables discuss only two
of codex's three archived rivals, and in several cases the "r1" it discusses
reads as a restatement of Grok's own r1 rather than any of codex's actual
three mechanisms. This was verified directly against archive frontmatter
(`rivals_parsed: 3`) for -02, -03, -06, -07, -08, -09, -11, -12, -19 and is
very likely present elsewhere too. It does not change any conjecture's
combined grade (every affected conjecture already carries an independently-
sufficient LIVE rival), but it means the "40 LIVE" / "87 LIVE" programme-wide
tallies in tranche 4's own closing summary undercount the true number of
archived-and-undischarged rivals. Worth a standing correction note on
tranche 4 itself, independent of this EDB audit.

**E.3 — EDB's own exact-dating rate (5.93% of dated records) is far below
even EDH's already-low 40% ceiling.** Not a discharge of any rival (none of
-06's four live rivals asks a cross-corpus question), but weak, honest
context: a wholly independent, later, differently-scoped corpus shows the
same directional rarity of single-year precision that the *registered*
-06 conjecture's mechanism claims is a general feature of Roman epigraphic
practice.

**E.4 — EDB is a near-monoculture despite 100% genre-field coverage.**
95.6% of EDB's 40,760 records carry the single genre value `Sepulcralis`
(funerary) — a corpus-defining fact, not a data-quality gap (the field is
*fully* populated; every record simply belongs overwhelmingly to one genre
by the deposit's own catacomb-focused remit). Anyone tempted to use EDB as a
generic "second opinion" on Roman epigraphic composition for a conjecture
outside the funerary-inscription domain should read this table before doing
so — it is precisely the survival/publication-selection bias several `-09`
and `-18` rivals worry about, reproduced inside the would-be comparandum
itself.

**E.5 — The three-way licence conflict, restated because it will matter the
moment any EDB-derived finding leaves this internal analysis.** Per
`edb_census.py`'s own docstring: the Zenodo deposit metadata says CC BY 4.0;
EDB's own website says CC BY-SA 4.0; and **every one of the 40,760 XML
files' own `<availability><licence>` tag** says CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Unported —
the most restrictive of the three, embedded in the data payload itself, not
just a metadata page. This audit used EDB only for internal read-only
counting and comparison (consistent with any of the three licences), but any
future publication of EDB-derived numbers (e.g. the -13 Rome comparison in
Part B.1, if it becomes part of a paper) should carry the per-file
NC-SA-3.0 statement forward, not just the more permissive deposit-level tag.

**E.6 — Independently-curated vocabularies really are independent.** EDH's
`type_of_monument` vocabulary is English (tabula, stele, altar, instrumentum
domesticum...); EDB's is German/Latin (Tafel, Sarkophag, Stele, Mosaik...).
Both plausibly descend from the same underlying EAGLE controlled vocabulary
(shared concept URIs would confirm this — part of the Part C check), but the
two projects display it in different languages, which is itself mild,
free evidence of genuinely separate curatorial pipelines rather than one
harvesting the other — relevant context for the independence question in
Part C, alongside whatever the TM-id join finds.


---

## RELEASE ERRATUM (appended 11 August 2026 — the record above is unchanged)

The Part A header note says both that r2-edh-b1's combined-grade table has 19/19 at INTERPOLATION-ONLY and, parenthetically, that -04 "lands STRENGTHENED on both families"; the note already carries a [sic] flag. The parenthetical reflects an interim state of the tranche adjudication; the final Grade adjudication (tranche 4 closing table) records EDH STRENGTHENED 0 of 19, all 19 INTERPOLATION-ONLY. The final table governs.
