# DRAFT ADJUDICATION — Popper Engine rivals stage, tranche 4 (Family A / GPT-5.6-sol)

**STATUS: DRAFT — awaiting orchestrator countersignature. Not a registered verdict.**

Scope: all 43 Family A (gpt-5.6-sol) rival archives — the 24 files in
`docs/generated/popper_rivals/r3-b1/codex/*.md` and the 19 files in
`docs/generated/popper_rivals/r2-edh-b1/codex/*.md`. **124 rivals actually
parsed** (verified by direct count of every file's `rivals_parsed`
frontmatter field: r3-b1 = 21 items×3 + r3-b1-01×2 + r3-b1-34×2 + r3-b1-08×1
= 68; r2-edh-b1 = 18 items×3 + r2-edh-b1-13×2 = 56; 68+56=124) — a small,
disclosed discrepancy against `MANIFEST.md`'s and the brief's stated "126"
(their own "39×3 + 3×2 + 1×1" arithmetic sums to 124, not 126; the "126"
appears to be a minor, harmless miscount in the build log's closing
paragraph, not a missing archive — every one of the 43 files was read in
full and every rival in every file is adjudicated below).

**Inputs read in full:** all 43 Family A archives; all three Family B
adjudication drafts (`ADJUDICATION_DRAFT_tranche{1,2,3}_20260806.md`,
including their countersignature sections) as BINDING precedent; the design
doc (`docs/DESIGN_POPPER_RIVALS_STAGE_20260806.md`); the harvester source
code for every touched catalogue (`apps/scriptome/services/namami_census.py`,
`namami_traditions.py`, `korcis_census.py`, `fankha_census.py`,
`edh_census.py`) for architecture/DEFECTIVE checks; the `MANIFEST.md` build
log.

All tests below were executed **read-only** against the live census DB
(`docker compose exec -T db psql -U inferopedia -d inferopedia`), 2026-08-07.
No writes; no git actions; no network access; no files touched other than
this one. `numpy` (2.5.1, in the `web` container) was available for
simulation-style tests but was not needed this pass (see §"Amendment #10 /
simulation-shaped rivals" below for why).

**How to read the verdicts** (protocol + tranche 1–3 precedent, unchanged):
RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (the rival's own proposed test ran on data we
hold, and the result cuts against the rival, per the rival's OWN stated
`what_result_favors_rival` criterion — that criterion decides, not this
agent's judgement of plausibility) · RIVAL-LIVE (plausible and undischarged
— no held-data test exists, a test ran but did not discharge the rival, a
test ran and the result leans toward the rival, OR the test is computable
in principle but was not completed within this pass's scope — the last of
these is called out explicitly wherever it occurs, distinct from genuine
NOT-COMPUTABLE, per the honesty discipline the brief demands) · RIVAL-
DEFECTIVE (the rival's own proposed test cannot be coherently formulated
against the real held architecture — Lane's Rule, tranche-2 ruling 3: if a
decisive query CAN be run and answered even though the rival mischaracterizes
architecture, file REFUTED, not DEFECTIVE; DEFECTIVE is reserved for tests
that cannot be formulated at all). NOT-COMPUTABLE converts to LIVE, never to
REFUTED. Per-conjecture DRAFT GRADE combines **both families**: STRENGTHENED
iff every rival from BOTH families lands REFUTED/DEFECTIVE; INTERPOLATION-
ONLY iff any rival from either family is LIVE; the special classes
(INTEGRITY-VERIFIED / SUPERSEDED / UNCHALLENGED) apply per their own
amendments, restated per-conjecture below.

---

## METHODOLOGICAL NOTE — the binding constraint, and how it was applied

Per the orchestrator's ruling relayed in this tranche's brief: this agent
minted none of the original conjectures but is the same model family that
did, and is therefore treated as conflicted on judgement calls. The
discipline applied throughout: **every rival whose discriminating test
touches data we hold was actually run**, read-only, against the live DB —
not reasoned about in the abstract. Distinctness/consistency calls that
remain judgement calls are marked with a confidence and an explicit
`CONTESTABLE: yes/no`; every `CONTESTABLE: yes` item is also collected in
its own section below (§"Contestable calls") for routing to the other model
family, per the brief. No close call is silently resolved in the
conjecture's favour: where a rival was genuinely computable but this pass's
time budget did not allow completing the full test, that is stated
explicitly as **"computable, not executed this pass"** rather than folded
into an ordinary NOT-COMPUTABLE (which would misrepresent it) or skipped
silently.

`computable_on_held_data` flags were reassessed for every rival, per the
brief's explicit instruction that tranches 1–3 proved these wrong in BOTH
directions. Reversals found this pass, by direction:
- **GPT under-claimed** (flagged `false`, reassessed computable and
  executed): r3-b1-01-r1/r2, r3-b1-08 (sole rival), r3-b1-19-r2/r3,
  r3-b1-21-r2, r3-b1-26-r3, r3-b1-31-r1/r2, r3-b1-32-r1/r2/r3,
  r3-b1-34-r1/r2, r3-b1-35-r1/r2, r3-b1-40-r1/r2 — the "flagged false but
  actually the frozen natural-experiment/architecture tests from tranches
  1–2 apply directly" family, plus several genuinely new tests below.
- **GPT over-claimed** (flagged `true`, reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE): r3-b1-01
  is the interesting exception (**r2 was flagged `true`, and IS
  computable**, just not the way GPT's own test literally describes it —
  see its entry); the clean over-claims are r3-b1-03-r1 (needs blind human
  re-dating of undated fragments), r3-b1-05-r1 (needs blind human
  re-segmentation), r3-b1-23-r3 (needs a pre-portal payload layer we do not
  have access to), r3-b1-25-r2 (needs shelfmark-grain data NAMAMI does not
  carry at this scope), r2-edh-b1-01-r3 (needs findspot **coordinates** —
  confirmed absent from all 28 raw keys), r2-edh-b1-25-r1 (needs actual
  image-asset verification, not just the `work_status` text label).

---

## MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING FINDING (stated up front, applies to §21/23/24/25/26/27/32)

**The NAMAMI tradition-routing instrument was re-versioned since tranche
2's countersignature, and the underlying `basis` distribution has shifted
materially — discovered as a direct consequence of running Family A's
rivals against the LIVE DB rather than against tranche-2's frozen numbers.**

Total NAMAMI row count is unchanged (`4,857,263`, identical to the
list-only enumeration scope tranches 1–2 measured — confirming this is a
**reclassification of the same rows**, not new records landing). But
`unrecognised_evidence` — the "curation gap, fixable" basis tranche 2 both
tested (r3-b1-24) and explicitly routed to the census lane as an
"actionable finding... a versioned `namami_traditions` extension... never a
silent edit" (tranche-2 countersignature ruling 6) — has collapsed
corpus-wide:

| State | `unrecognised_evidence`, tranche-2 (2026-08-06/07) | `unrecognised_evidence`, NOW (2026-08-07, this pass) |
|---|---:|---:|
| Bihar | 114,232 (29.46% of state) | **32** (0.0083%) |
| Gujarat | (not separately reported) | 6,415 |
| Rajasthan | 6,480 | 19 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 1,469 | 4 |
| J&K | 13 | 14 |
| Tamil Nadu | 3 | 71 |
| Delhi | (not reported, presumably ~0) | 4 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 30 | 4 |
| Maharashtra | 478 | 0 |
| Odisha | 34 | 0 |
| Jharkhand | 37 | 0 |
| Haryana | 401 | 0 |

This matches, exactly, tranche 2's own diagnosis (the dominant driver was
Devanagari-script spellings of already-recognized language names —
Sanskrit/Hindi/Maithili/etc. — that the vocabulary snapshot, built from the
portal's Roman-script dropdown, did not recognize) and its own ordered fix.
`docs/generated/namami_traditions_v_next_devanagari_20260806.md` exists on
disk, consistent with this having been executed as a real re-derivation
pass between tranche 2 and this one. **Consequences for THIS tranche,
stated plainly:**

1. **No survival status changes.** Every affected ceiling/floor (r3-b1-23,
   -24, -32) holds by a *larger* margin now than at registration, not a
   smaller one.
2. **The "tightest case" identity has moved for two conjectures.** r3-b1-23
   (unclassified ≤45%): Bihar's share fell from 41.26% to 11.81%; the new
   state maximum is Gujarat at 14.49%. r3-b1-32 (plurality-basis ≥35%):
   Bihar's plurality rose from 40.62% to 69.31%; the new tightest state is
   Andhra Pradesh at 63.58% — still comfortably clear of the 35% floor
   (nearly double it), a materially more comfortable margin than the
   original registration had.
3. **r3-b1-24's own tranche-2 "actionable finding" has already been acted
   on.** This directly determines how Family A's r3-b1-24-r1 rival (which
   independently proposes almost exactly the mechanism tranche 2 diagnosed
   and fixed) is adjudicated below — see that entry; it is filed
   RIVAL-LIVE (favors, resolved), not REFUTED, because the mechanism was
   in fact real and the data itself is the record of it being corrected.
4. **HP is unaffected.** Himachal Pradesh's basis breakdown (script
   5,189/323,468=1.60%; `script_outranks_language_facet`
   107/323,468=0.033%; sanskrit-umbrella share 72,545/323,468=22.43%) is
   numerically identical to what tranches 1–2 measured — the
   re-versioning's effect was concentrated in the `unrecognised_evidence`
   pathway, which was never HP's issue.

This is disclosed as its own section, not buried in a footnote, because it
materially changes what "the registered training value" means for anyone
citing r3-b1-23/-24/-32 after this date, independent of any rival's own
verdict.

---

# PART 1 — r3-b1 (NAMAMI / India), 24 conjectures, 68 rivals

## r3-b1-01 — NAMAMI dated-fraction <1%

| Rival | Mechanism (gist) | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Upstream absence: dates never existed in NAMAMI's own source records, even in richer (detail-page) views. | Yes. | true→true | See below. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | Downstream normalization defect discards a date value that DID survive enumeration. | Yes — locates the fault one stage later than r1. | true→true (computable, but not the way GPT's own test literally asks) | See below. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (CONTESTABLE vs DEFECTIVE)** |

**r1 test, re-run fresh:**
```sql
SELECT raw->>'namami_detail_fetched', date_precision, count(*)
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51 GROUP BY 1,2;
```
List-only (detail_fetched false/absent): 4,845,289 rows, 100.000% unknown, 0
dated. Detail-fetched: 11,974 rows, 210 (1.754%) carry a resolved date —
identical to tranche 1's snapshot, confirming the pilot hasn't moved. Per
r1's own criterion ("Date fields are absent or blank... including after
querying richer NAMAMI representations... favors rival") this is a clean
refutation: dates ARE recoverable from richer representations.

**r2 test, executed via code inspection + a live query it licenses.**
`apps/scriptome/services/namami_census.py:build_enumeration_record` was read
in full: the enumeration-phase `raw` payload writes exactly 17 keys
(`namami_tradition_routing`, `namami_id_manus`, `namami_detail_id_param`,
`title_raw`, `author_raw`, `language_raw`, `script_raw`, `subject_raw`,
`institute_raw`, `holding_state`, `holding_state_id`,
`holding_is_not_origin`, `harvest_phase`, `namami_detail_fetched`,
`source_dataset`, `source_url`, `attribution`, `goal_source`) — **none
date-shaped**, confirmed directly against the code (the list-page parser,
`parse_search_result_fragment`, extracts exactly 9 fixed table columns:
`id_manus/title/author/language/script/subject/institute/state`, no date
column exists in the table it reads). There is therefore no
"pre-normalization date value" anywhere in the enumeration record for a
downstream step to discard — the enumerator never captures one to begin
with. Per Lane's Rule (tranche-2 ruling 3), this is filed
REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA because the check (does any date-shaped key exist on a
list-only row?) is a real, decisive, executable query against data we hold,
even though the rival's own proposed mechanism (an "enumerator-output
interface" that accepts and later loses dates) does not correspond to
anything the real architecture contains. **CONTESTABLE: yes** — this is
architecturally closer to tranche-1's 06-r1 DEFECTIVE pattern than to
tranche-2's 21-r1/24-r2/26-r1 REFUTED trio, and the orchestrator may prefer
to re-file it DEFECTIVE; the underlying finding is unaffected either way.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED** (Family B: STRENGTHENED, both refuted; Family
A: both refuted). **Unchanged.**

---

## r3-b1-03 — Binding-waste fragment mean date, distinct from Genizah

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Informative missingness: currently-undated Genizah fragments are systematically earlier; blind-dating them would narrow the gap. | Yes. | true→**false** | Not computable as proposed. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Pseudoreplication: European "convergence" is a few heavily-fragmented parent codices counted per-leaf. | Yes — a genuinely new mechanism vs. Family B. | true→true | See below — decisive. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Compositional confound (region/language/script/genre/collecting remit), broader strata than Family B tested. | Yes. | true→**false** | No shared vocabulary exists. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r1 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE.** Its own test needs fragments "dated
blindly using one common protocol" by a human — no such capability is held.
Supplementary, non-equivalent proxy (already in tranche 1): the
highest-precision (`exact`) subset of Ktiv/Genizah has mean **1526.88**
(n=425) — *later*, not earlier, than its own pooled mean (1471.71) — at
minimum not supportive of "more careful dating skews earlier," though this
doesn't test what r1 actually proposes.

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed:**
```sql
SELECT 'row_weighted', avg(date_start), count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
  WHERE source_id=64 AND target_unit='fragment' AND date_start IS NOT NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT 'cluster_weighted', avg(shelf_mean), count(*) FROM
  (SELECT normalized_shelfmark, avg(date_start) shelf_mean FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
   WHERE source_id=64 AND target_unit='fragment' AND date_start IS NOT NULL GROUP BY 1) s;
-- + identical pair for source_id=46 (Fragmentarium)
```
MPO(64): row-weighted mean **1280.61** (n=17,234 rows) vs. shelfmark-
cluster-weighted **1299.31** (n=154 clusters) — a +18.7yr shift.
Fragmentarium(46): row-weighted **1280.29** (n=6,946) vs. cluster-weighted
**1285.54** (n=6,141 clusters, near-1:1 — Fragmentarium barely clusters at
all) — a +5.2yr shift. MPO's single largest shelfmark alone holds 3,793 of
~17,234 fragment rows (a real, heavy concentration — exactly the kind of
"a few highly fragmented codices" r2 needs) — yet cluster-weighting barely
moves the mean, and **the two European sources still agree closely after
cluster-weighting** (1299.31 vs. 1285.54, 13.8yr apart — arguably tighter,
relatively, than before). Ktiv/Genizah's `normalized_shelfmark` is **blank
on 100% of 43,218 fragment rows** — the cluster reweight cannot be
performed on that side at all (a genuine, disclosed missing datum for the
full three-way test). Per r2's own criterion ("parent-weighting will
materially move at least one European mean, weaken their convergence, or
substantially reduce the European-Genizah difference") — none of that
happened for the part we CAN test. **Decisive refutation of the tested
half; the missing Ktiv-side datum is disclosed, not smoothed over.**

**r3 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE — extends tranche 1's finding.** Sampled the
actual vocabularies: MPO's `sachgruppe` (genre code: Lit 17,175/Jur
2,339/Theol 1,528/Bib 1,023/...) is a German subject taxonomy;
Fragmentarium's `document_type_raw` is 99.9% the single uninformative value
"Fragment" and its `region` is 99.1% "continental_west"; Ktiv carries only
free-text `subject` (Hebrew headings) and a `cairo_genizah_flag`, no
comparable genre code at all. No populated, cross-walkable stratification
variable — region, genre, or document-type — exists across all three
sources (extends tranche-1's identical finding for script/language). LIVE.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; Family B was already
INTERPOLATION-ONLY). The genuinely new r2 finding is a clean, decisive
positive for the base conjecture's training-side robustness on the tested
half — flagged for the record alongside tranche-1's own flagged wrinkle on
this same conjecture (§ Contestable calls / orchestrator items).

---

## r3-b1-04 — Korea (korcis) medium_class mix stable ±10pp

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Stock-flow dilution: the 499,003-row legacy stock is too large for any marginal batch to move the cumulative mix, independent of real stability. | Yes — a mathematical-artifact-of-scale claim, not an organic-growth claim. | true→true | See below — favors. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors)** |
| r2 | Schema/contributing-institution-dependent missingness, not source-wide organic composition. | Yes. | true→true | See below — favors, decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, decisive)** |
| r3 | Record-splitting/parent-work-family expansion (component records inherit medium_class). | Yes. | true→**false** | Shelfmark 99.87% blank at this grain. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r1 test** — reuses the day-1/day-2 split (day-2 = 21,859 rows, 2026-07-25,
4.4% of the corpus; this IS the same standing korcis-day-2 flag from
tranche 1, now read through GPT's own dilution framing): day-2's own
marginal shares differ from baseline by up to 19.37pp (unknown) and −15.36pp
(manuscript) — both outside the registered ±10pp band — while the
CUMULATIVE measurement (which already includes day-2, diluted by day-1's
95.6%-of-corpus bulk) stays inside band. Per r1's own criterion ("a future
cumulative mix remains within 10 points while... marginal batches differ by
more than 10 points, with cumulative change matching predicted dilution by
the legacy stock") — this is exactly what the data shows.

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed:**
```sql
WITH lib AS (SELECT repository_id, medium_class, count(*) c FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
  WHERE source_id=50 GROUP BY 1,2), tot AS (SELECT repository_id, sum(c) total FROM lib GROUP BY 1)
SELECT l.repository_id, t.total, round(100.0*sum(c) FILTER (WHERE medium_class='unknown')/t.total,2) unknown_pct
FROM lib l JOIN tot t USING(repository_id) GROUP BY 1,2 ORDER BY t.total DESC LIMIT 15;
```
Per-contributing-library `unknown` share, top 15 libraries by volume:
**ranges from 12.18% to 100.00%**, against the corpus-wide average of
64.56%. That is a far larger spread than the ±10pp band this conjecture is
even measuring. Per r2's own criterion ("Medium labels, especially unknown,
are highly concentrated in particular contributor-schema strata... favors
this") — confirmed, decisively, and this is a genuinely new finding Family
B could not reach (its own r2 for this conjecture was correctly flagged
NOT-COMPUTABLE: "classifier internals... not held" — GPT instead tested
institution-identity, which we do hold).

**r3 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE.** `normalized_shelfmark` is blank on
498,673/499,003 (99.87%) of korcis rows at enumeration grain — confirmed
directly against `korcis_census.py` (shelfmark is populated only by the
separate, slower `harvest_korcis_detail_enrichment` phase). No parent-work
clustering is possible at the scale this conjecture is measured at.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged). **Flagged prominently**:
r2's institution-level 12–100% unknown-rate spread is, if anything, a
sharper positive-support finding for a real confound than the original
day-2 flag — both are korcis-specific standing data-quality items and
should be read together (per tranche-1 countersignature ruling 3's
still-open korcis flag).

---

## r3-b1-05 — ContainedText-per-manuscript ratio is source-specific

Sources: mlgb3-live=16, pinakes=17, fihrist-tei=19, cbeta-works=34.

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Cataloguing-depth/segmentation-rule differences, blind human re-segmentation needed. | Yes. | true→**false** | Needs human recataloguing. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Denominator/physical-object unit mismatch (a Byzantine record = 1 codex; another catalogue splits a codex into several parent records). | Yes — a genuinely new mechanism vs. Family B's two (both NOT-COMPUTABLE). | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Differential selection/collection scope, needs a new independent probability sample. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed** (shelfmark clustering, same method as
r3-b1-03-r2 above, applied to `scriptome_containedtext`):

| Source | n_parents | n_shelfmarks | n_contained_texts | row-weighted ratio | shelfmark-cluster-weighted ratio |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| mlgb3-live (16) | 8,199 | 5,822 | 8,300 | 1.01 | **1.43** |
| pinakes (17) | 39,842 | 34,662 | 260,182 | 6.53 | **7.51** |
| fihrist-tei (19) | 15,318 | 15,315 | 37,176 | 2.43 | 2.43 (unchanged) |
| cbeta-works (34) | 5,005 | 5,005 (1:1 exactly) | 5,005 | 1.00 | 1.00 (unchanged, confirms disclosed harvester-artifact) |

Row-weighted ratios reproduce the registered figures exactly. Per r2's own
criterion ("the 6.53, 2.43, and 1.01 ratios converge materially after
normalization to the same physical-object denominator") — they do the
**opposite**: pinakes' ratio *rises* (6.53→7.51, wrong direction for the
rival), fihrist-tei is essentially untouched, and only mlgb3 shows a real
(but modest, 1.01→1.43) shift that comes nowhere near closing the gap to
pinakes. The cross-source spread *widens* (5.52→6.08) rather than
converging. Clean, decisive refutation on a mechanism Family B never
proposed (its own r2, differential selection/scope, needed an external
sample and was correctly marked not-computable).

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; r1/r3 both LIVE). Same as
r3-b1-03: the new r2 finding is a real positive for the base conjecture's
robustness, disclosed here rather than only in the grade.

---

## r3-b1-06 — FANKHA institutional-attribution completeness (69.86%)

FANKHA architecture (`fankha_census.py`, read in full): `title_index` = the
WORK; `zone_index` = a physical COPY of that work (`SHAMARE-YE NOSKHE`);
every zone (including zone_index>0) is an **independent physical exemplar**
with its own siglum resolution, not a hierarchical child inheriting from a
parent item.

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Component-vs-item denominator: unattributed rows are copies that should inherit a parent's institution. | Yes. | true→true | See below. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (CONTESTABLE vs DEFECTIVE)** |
| r2 | Entity-resolution/Persian-name-normalization failure: a fixable lookup-table gap, not genuine incompleteness. | Yes — narrower/different from both Family B rivals. | true→true | See below — favors, decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors)** |
| r3 | Selection on custody status: FANKHA deliberately documents private/dispersed/unlocated items. | **Not distinct** — identical in shape to Family B's r2. | true→true | Reuses tranche-1 finding. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r1 test** (proxy: does unattributed status concentrate in non-primary
zones?):
```sql
SELECT (repository_id IS NULL) unattributed, (zone_index-signal nonprimary), count(*)
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=29 GROUP BY 1,2;
```
Unattributed rate among nonprimary-zone rows = 30.4% (91,319/300,318);
among primary-zone rows = 26.7% (6,078/22,793) — nearly flat, no meaningful
component-vs-item split. REFUTED on this proxy. **CONTESTABLE: yes** — per
the architecture note above, FANKHA has no real "parent item lacking a
child's own institution field" concept at all (every zone is independently
sourced), which is closer to tranche-1's 06-r1 DEFECTIVE shape than to a
clean REFUTED; filed REFUTED per Lane's Rule (a real, decisive proxy query
ran) but flagged for the same re-check tranche 2 gave its own three
borderline cases.

**r2 test, genuinely new, decisive-looking, executed:**
```sql
SELECT raw->>'siglum_raw', count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
WHERE source_id=29 AND raw->>'holding_resolution_status'='siglum_not_in_table' GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2 DESC LIMIT 20;
```
Top 20 values (56.9% of all 90,268 `siglum_not_in_table` rows) are **not
blank or garbage — they are clearly legible, recognizable Persian
abbreviations for major, real Iranian manuscript libraries**: مجلس
("Majles" — the National Consultative Assembly Library), رضوی ("Razavi" —
Astan Quds Razavi), دانشگاه ("University"), مرعشی ("Mar'ashi" — one of
Iran's most famous named manuscript libraries), ملی ("National"), ملک
("Malek"), گلپایگانی ("Golpayegani"), شورا ("Council"), etc. — sigla whose
resolution table simply lacks an entry, not text that fails to identify an
institution. Per r2's own criterion ("favored if most nominally unresolved
rows contain usable institution values and improved normalization raises
completeness close to comparator levels") — this is real, substantive
support, though not a full discharge (the improved table was not built and
re-run). **Distinct from BOTH Family B rivals** (Grok r1 = upstream
contributor-feed incompleteness, stayed LIVE; Grok r2 = deliberate scope
policy, was REFUTED) — a genuinely new, narrower, more concretely testable
claim (lookup-table gap specifically). **CONTESTABLE: yes** — a reasonable
reader could read this as close enough to Grok's own still-LIVE r1
(institutional-feed incompleteness) to be non-distinct in spirit even
though the causal layer named is different (normalization vs. upstream
completeness); flagged for the routing the brief asks for.

**r3 test:** identical in shape to Family B's r2, reuses tranche-1's exact
finding directly (`holding_resolution_status` vocabulary has zero
private/unlocated/dispersed-type values anywhere, confirmed against
`fankha_census.py`'s own field vocabulary — all three values present
[`siglum_not_in_table`/`conditional_unresolved`/`no_copy_number_field`] are
purely technical resolution-failure statuses).

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE CHANGE.** Family B
alone: STRENGTHENED (r1 DEFECTIVE, r2 REFUTED, per tranche-1's
countersignature). Adding Family A: r2 stays LIVE (favors) — the combined
grade drops to **INTERPOLATION-ONLY**. This is one of five r3-b1 flips this
tranche; see the combined summary.

---

## r3-b1-07 — SfarData ≥2-scribe-attestation share (5.38%)

All 6,375 rows loaded in a single bulk harvest day (2026-07-30, reconfirmed
— no cohort signal exists for any day/batch-shaped rival on this source, a
static structural fact of the SfarData harvest, not something that could
have changed).

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Event-vs-identity non-dedup: repeated mentions of the same scribe inflate the multi-attestation count. | Yes. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | Composite-codex/multi-unit denominator: attestations belong to separate codicological units bundled under one record. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | Needs folio/unit data not held. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Mandatory-primary/optional-secondary cataloguing workflow, contributor/batch heterogeneity. | Yes (targets workflow convention, not level bias). | true→**false** (no signal exists) | Single bulk day = no batch variation to test. | **RIVAL-LIVE (degenerate)** |

**r1 test, genuinely new, executed.** `scriptome_scribeattestation` has a
`scribe_id` FK that turned out to be **1:1 with attestation rows** (6,375
total = 6,375 distinct `scribe_id`s, confirmed) — i.e. it performs no
cross-attestation entity resolution at all, so it cannot be used as an
identity signal. The direct textual test instead:
```sql
-- within each multi-attestation record, does ordinal>=2's name_as_written equal ordinal=1's?
```
Among the 463 within-record ordinal-2+ comparisons: 122 (26.3%) share
identical raw name text with ordinal 1; 341 (73.7%) do not. Per r1's own
criterion ("favored if a LARGE MAJORITY of nominally multi-attested records
collapse to one distinct identity... [registered mechanism predicts] most
such records should retain at least two distinct scribes") — a 73.7%
distinct-name majority is the opposite of "large majority collapse to one."
**Caveat stated plainly:** exact-text match is a conservative proxy (would
undercount real re-mentions written with spelling variants), so the true
same-scribe rate could exceed 26.3% — but the margin (73.7% vs. 26.3%) is
far too wide for that alone to flip the conclusion.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; r2/r3 both LIVE either
way).

---

## r3-b1-08 — NAMAMI extent_leaves populated <1%

Single rival (mechanism: legacy/minimal ingestion templates omit
structured extent data, state-clustered).

**Test** (same natural experiment as r3-b1-01, re-run):
```sql
SELECT raw->>'namami_detail_fetched', (extent_leaves IS NOT NULL), count(*)
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51 GROUP BY 1,2;
```
List-only: 4,845,289 rows, 0 populated (0.000%). Detail-fetched: 11,974
rows, 11,862 (99.065%) populated. The detail-fetch pilot spans four
different states/UTs (Sikkim, Goa, Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh) — presence
is broad across the whole detail-fetch mechanism, not narrowly clustered in
one institution or pathway, directly against the rival's own prediction
("positive records are sharply associated with particular institutions,
import cohorts, or schema versions").

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED** (unchanged; Family B STRENGTHENED, single
Family A rival also REFUTED).

---

## r3-b1-09 — Exact-precision-dating rate is source-specific and stable

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Genre/document-type composition selection, not cataloguing tradition. | Yes. | true→**false** | No shared genre taxonomy exists (extends r3-b1-03's finding). | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Source-specific date-string-parsing/pipeline-crosswalk defect. | Yes. | true→true (weakened by architecture, not fully discharged) | See below. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Denominator/duplication: componentization inflates the exact-dated fraction. | Yes. | true→true (partial) | See below — mixed. | **RIVAL-LIVE (mixed, partial favor)** |

**r1 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE**, same missing datum as r3-b1-03-r3: no
shared, cross-source genre/document-type vocabulary exists (MPO's German
`sachgruppe`, Fragmentarium's near-uniform `document_type_raw`, Ktiv's
Hebrew subject headings, korcis's `EDIT_NAME` medium codes, FANKHA's
`work_genre` — six independently-built, non-cross-walkable vocabularies).

**r2 — architecture context, not a full discharge.** Read
`korcis_census.py`'s `parse_korcis_year` and `namami_census.py`'s
`resolve_christian_era_date` in full: each source's date parser is
bespoke, hand-built against that source's own actual convention (korcis:
bracketed/Dangi-era rules; namami: only the `Christian Era` facet, a fixed
21-value dropdown) — not one shared regex, which weakens (does not
disprove) a claim of a single cross-source "pipeline mapping" artifact.
Supplementary check: korcis's own `date_method` distribution shows only
7.3% genuinely `unparsed` (36,491/499,003) against 33.7%
`explicit_unspecified_marker` (the SOURCE itself says "undated") — a real
parser-failure story would predict a much higher unparsed share. Not a
full 8-source discharge; LIVE, with this context disclosed.

**r3 test, genuinely new, partial:**
```sql
-- exact-dating rate, row-weighted vs shelfmark-cluster-weighted (bool_or), MPO and Fragmentarium
```
MPO(64): row-weighted 2.46% (of 22,909 fragment rows) vs. cluster-weighted
(≥1 exact-dated leaf per shelfmark) **39.10%** (of 156 clusters) — a
roughly **16× shift**. Fragmentarium(46): 97.47% vs. 97.91% — essentially
unmoved (consistent with its near-1:1 shelfmark ratio, established above).
**Caveat stated plainly:** this query's own denominator (exact ÷ all
fragment rows) may not exactly reproduce the registered r09 statistic's own
definition (possibly exact ÷ dated rows, or a different scope) — the
DIRECTION and MAGNITUDE of the row-vs-cluster sensitivity for MPO is the
finding, not a claim to have reproduced the registered 10.76–72.53% range
precisely. Per r3's own criterion ("deduplication... materially changes the
source ranking... especially where row-level exact rates correlate with
records per object") — MPO shows exactly this; the other 6 sources are not
computable at this grain (near-zero shelfmark population, established
repeatedly above). Genuinely mixed/partial: 1 of 2 testable sources
strongly favors the rival, the other shows no effect, 6 of 8 untestable.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged).

---

## r3-b1-16 — NAMAMI distinct-institution density ceiling (103/1,000)

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Institution-name entity-resolution (merge/split) artifact. | Yes. | true→true | Reuses tranche-1 finding. | **RIVAL-LIVE (leans against, not dispositive)** |
| r2 | Survey/catalogue-coverage undercounting of small/private holdings, external census needed. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Record-granularity/duplicate-record denominator inflation. | Yes. | true→**false** | manus_code/Record No. only exist on the tiny, non-binding detail pilot. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r1**: reuses tranche-1's light-normalization test directly (case-fold,
trim, collapse whitespace: distinct-count changes 0–4.3% across all 11
training states; density stays far under the 103 ceiling either way).
Checked (new this pass): most NAMAMI states loaded across 2–4 distinct
`created_at` days (not single-day like SfarData) — a real, disclosed,
**unexplored** avenue for a batch-effect sub-test that this pass did not
have room to run for all 20 states; noted honestly rather than assumed
clean.

**r3 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE**: the only manuscript/copy-linkage signal
NAMAMI carries (`manus_code`/`Record No.`) exists solely on the 11,974-row
detail-fetch pilot (Sikkim/Goa/A&N/Chandigarh) — none of which are anywhere
near the states that set this ceiling (e.g. Odisha).

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged).

---

## r3-b1-17 — Institution-holdings rank–count log–log slope in [-3.0,-0.3]

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Preferential-cataloguing-depth-by-institution-rank, external capture-fraction data needed. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Record-vs-physical-manuscript unitization (duplicate/multi-work expansion inflates the head). | Yes. | true→**false** | Same manus_code/shelfmark gap as r16-r3. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Institution-class/administrative-tier mixture (public/university/private capacity tiers). | Yes. | true→**false** | Would require freshly BUILDING a classification, not one we hold. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

All three land NOT-COMPUTABLE on independent, disclosed grounds — r1 needs
an external inventory; r2 needs the same manus_code/shelfmark linkage
established as absent at this scope throughout this report; r3 would
require this agent to construct a new institution-type taxonomy from
scratch, which is a derived artifact, not something sitting in held data.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE CHANGE.** Family B
alone: STRENGTHENED (both Grok rivals REFUTED — singleton-exclusion and
top-3-exclusion refits, tranche 1). All three Family A rivals are LIVE
(none computable), which is sufficient by itself to drop the combined grade
to **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** even though Family B's own rivals were both
cleanly discharged.

---

## r3-b1-18 — Small single-city UT beats every large state's top-1 share

State ids confirmed: Delhi=10, Puducherry=27, J&K=15.

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Contributor/digitization-campaign coverage bias, external audit needed. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Umbrella-institution entity-splitting (department/branch/address granularity). | Yes. | true→**false** | No dept/branch/address fields held beyond literal institute_raw text. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Flagship absolute-size outlier vs. institution-count landscape (not single-city-ness per se). | Yes — close to Family B's r2 in spirit; CONTESTABLE. | true→true | See below — mixed, NEW numbers. | **RIVAL-LIVE (mixed, favors on balance)** |

**r3 test, genuinely new, executed:**
```sql
SELECT raw->>'holding_state', count(distinct raw->>'institute_raw'), count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
WHERE source_id=51 AND raw->>'holding_state_id' IN ('10','27') GROUP BY 1;
```
**Delhi: 76 distinct institutions** (NOT a small landscape) — top
institution (Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology) = 26,614/51,704 =
51.5% (matches registered 51.47%) — a real flagship outlier atop a
moderately broad landscape, favoring the rival's specific mechanism.
**Puducherry: exactly 1 distinct institution total** — the smallest
possible landscape, i.e. the textbook single-institution case the
registered mechanism itself would predict, NOT what the rival's premise
needs ("no unusually small institution landscape"). J&K (context, not a
named target, reused from tranche 1): 700 distinct institutions, top-1
29.63%. Per r3's own criterion, Delhi and J&K both corroborate "flagship
alone suffices regardless of landscape breadth"; Puducherry contradicts the
rival's own premise. **Genuinely mixed** — not a clean discharge either
way. **CONTESTABLE: yes** — this closely resembles Family B's own r2
(historical-accident/mega-institution, also LIVE/well-supported via the
J&K finding); a reasonable reader could treat GPT r3 as non-distinct in
substance from Grok r2 even though its own framing (institution-count
regression) differs.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged).

---

## r3-b1-19 — No holdout institution beats HP's Tibetan-institution volume

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Differential survey/digitization-capture rate, external inventory needed. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Record-granularity: HP catalogues at a finer unit (splitting), holdout monasteries at whole-manuscript grain. | Yes. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW, refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Entity-aggregation: HP is one consolidated parent; holdout region is many small, separately-represented monasteries. | Yes. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW, refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, decisive, executed** (title-diversity as a proxy
for record-splitting, since manus_code/shelfmark is unavailable at this
scope — one of GPT's own named acceptable units):
```sql
SELECT raw->>'institute_raw', count(*), count(distinct title), round(count(distinct title)::numeric/count(*),4)
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51
  AND raw->>'institute_raw' IN ('Library Of Tibetan Works and Archives','Basgo Serzang Monastery') GROUP BY 1;
```
HP's Library Of Tibetan Works and Archives: 53,727 records, 44,847 distinct
titles — ratio **0.8347** (83% unique-title rate, HIGH diversity). J&K's
Basgo Serzang Monastery (the comparison institution): 951 records, 156
distinct titles — ratio **0.1640** (16%, MUCH more repetitive). This is the
**opposite** of what the rival needs (it predicts HP should show LOW
title-diversity from fine-splitting a smaller number of true works) — if
anything the small holdout monastery is the more repetitive one. Per r2's
own criterion ("the 53,700 records collapse into a physical-object count
comparable to the holdout maximum... after unit normalization") — they
plainly do not; a crude title-collapse of HP would still leave ~44,847
distinct works, two orders of magnitude above 951.

**r3 test, genuinely new, decisive, executed** (full per-state
`tradition='tibetan'` totals, all 17 states with any):
HP 250,035; **J&K 15,666**; Bihar 11,135; West Bengal 7,524; Uttar Pradesh
321; Sikkim 209; ... Even taking J&K's **entire state total** (not merely
its top institution) as the most generous possible "combine separately-
represented holdout monasteries" reading, 15,666 is still only 29% of HP's
single-institution figure (53,697/250,035). Per r3's own criterion
("combining separately represented holdout monasteries produces a regional
total much closer to the training total") — it plainly does not, under the
most favorable available aggregation.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; r1 still LIVE on both
families — Grok's r1 and GPT's r1 are convergent, both needing the same
external inventory data neither model can supply).

---

## r3-b1-21 — Sanskrit-tradition umbrella floor (>20%)

*(See MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING FINDING — HP's own numbers here are unaffected by
the re-versioning.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Asymmetric taxonomy breadth: the umbrella pools broadly while other traditions are finely split — a routing-rule artifact, needs blind symmetric independent recoding. | Yes. | true→**false** | Needs new human recoding; context only. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Institutional-batch dominance/denominator dilution — cap/remove top institutions. | Yes. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Selective repository participation, external census needed. | Yes. | false→false (agree, same as Grok r2) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed** (HP is the tightest case, current
sanskrit share = 72,545/323,468 = 22.43%, essentially unchanged from
registration):
```sql
-- HP sanskrit share, all institutions vs excluding its single largest sanskrit-tagged institution
```
All: 22.42%. Excluding HP's largest sanskrit institution (Himachal Academy
of Arts, Culture & Languages, Shimla — 1,241 of 323,468 records, 0.38% of
the state): **22.13%** — a 0.29pp change. Per r2's own criterion ("highly
sensitive to removing or capping one or two institutional batches") — not
remotely sensitive.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; r1/r3 both LIVE either
way).

---

## r3-b1-23 — "unrecognised evidence" routing basis never exceeds 45%

*(See MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING FINDING — the training case (Bihar 41.26%) is
now stale; current Bihar = 11.81%, new state maximum = Gujarat 14.49%.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Pre-portal publication/ingest filtering — poorly-described holdings never enter the catalogue at all, external accession registers needed. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Denominator dilution by a few large low-abstention institutions. | Yes. | true→true | See below — refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Pre-normalization payload/template feature-leakage. | Yes. | true→**false** | We hold no layer upstream of the scraped list-page text. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r2 test, on CURRENT data:**
```sql
-- Bihar tradition='unclassified' share, all institutions vs excluding top-5 institutions
```
All: 11.81%. Excluding Bihar's top-5 institutions: **13.89%** — the share
*rises* slightly when the largest institutions are removed (the opposite of
a dilution story, which needs it to fall). Nowhere near 45% either way.
REFUTED.

**r3 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE.** `language_raw`/`script_raw` ARE the
scraped list-page display values themselves — this project has no access to
any NAMAMI-internal pre-display layer to compare against; there is no
"pre-normalization import payload" beyond what we already scraped.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; r1 still LIVE).

---

## r3-b1-24 — "unrecognised evidence" (curation-gap) basis never exceeds 35%

*(See MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING FINDING — this is the conjecture whose own
tranche-2 "actionable finding" appears to have been directly acted on.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Unicode/script-of-entry formatting artifact, batch/repository-specific — describes almost exactly what tranche 2 diagnosed. | Yes. | true→true | See below — the mechanism was TRUE and has since been corrected. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, resolved)** |
| r2 | Duplicate-record/institutional-concentration inflation of the outlier. | Yes. | true→true | Reuses tranche-2 finding (still valid). | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Time-of-harvest/schema-migration confound, source-side re-cataloguing. | Yes — a DIFFERENT cause (source drift) from the re-versioning actually observed (our own instrument code changed, not NAMAMI's source data). | true→**false**, as literally proposed | Real drift found, but not the drift this rival names. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r1 — treated with care, not smoothed into a routine label.** Bihar's
`unrecognised_evidence` collapsed from 114,232 (29.46%) at tranche-2's
snapshot to **32** (0.0083%) now — the SAME re-versioning documented in the
cross-cutting section above, executing tranche 2's own diagnosis (Devanagari
spellings of already-recognized language names) almost verbatim. GPT r1's
mechanism ("Unicode and string-normalization artifact... repository-specific
data-entry convention") is, in substance, the correct account of what
happened, and the registered ceiling's own margin has since grown
enormously as a direct real-world consequence. This is neither an ordinary
REFUTED (the rival's account was correct) nor a routine LIVE-undischarged
(the account has since been *confirmed and resolved*, not merely left
standing) — filed **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, resolved)** per protocol's "test ran
and leans toward the rival" branch, since calling it REFUTED would
misleadingly imply the mechanism was wrong when the live data shows it was
right. **CONTESTABLE: yes** — how to file a rival whose mechanism has been
independently fixed since is genuinely novel to this stage; flagged for an
explicit orchestrator ruling (see closing items).

**r2**: reuses tranche 2's institutional-diffuseness finding (2,490
institutions contribute to the old 114,232-record pool, top-15 only 45.4%)
— directly against a "duplicated bulk collection" story, still valid as a
finding about the composition of what has since been fixed.

**r3 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE as literally proposed.** The re-versioning
that WAS found is a reclassification via a routing-code/vocabulary update,
not source-side re-cataloguing at NAMAMI's end (the underlying scraped
`language_raw`/`script_raw` text is presumably unchanged) — a different
mechanism than the one r3 names, and testing r3's own literal claim would
need historical raw-payload snapshots we do not retain.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE CHANGE.** Family B
alone: STRENGTHENED (both Grok rivals REFUTED, tranche 2). Family A's r1
stays LIVE (favors, resolved) and r3 stays LIVE — the combined grade drops
to **INTERPOLATION-ONLY**, for an unusually well-evidenced reason: not
because a mechanism was left standing untested, but because one WAS tested,
found true, and has visibly been fixed in the interim — arguably the
single most interesting individual finding in this whole tranche.

---

## r3-b1-25 — Genuinely-blank-field routing basis never exceeds 15%

*(Not touched by the re-versioning — `no_language_or_script_evidence`
values are numerically identical to tranche 2: Bihar 45,783 exactly.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Portal rendering/field-loss on alternative representations, batch-clustered. | Yes. | false→**true** (tranche-1/2 precedent applies) | Reuses tranche-2 detail-fetch test — thin. | **RIVAL-LIVE (thin)** |
| r2 | Duplicate-record denominator inflation via shelfmark/record clustering. | Yes — a different test than Grok's r2 (institutional concentration). | true→**false** | Same shelfmark-absence problem established throughout. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Pre-publication selective admission, external accession/rejected-ingest logs. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r1** reuses tranche 2's test exactly (only 1 record source-wide qualifies
among the 11,974-row detail-fetch pilot; underpowered, n=1).

**r2 reassessed NOT-COMPUTABLE**, distinct missing datum from Grok's own r2
(which WAS computable via institutional concentration, and WAS run in
tranche 2: Bihar diffuse, Maharashtra concentrated — a genuine split). GPT's
r2 specifically wants shelfmark/duplicate-record clustering, which is not
available for NAMAMI at this scope.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (unchanged; all three families' rivals
for this conjecture remain undischarged either way).

---

## r3-b1-26 — "script alone sufficient" routing basis never exceeds 2%

*(HP's own numbers confirmed stable post-re-versioning: 5,189/323,468 =
1.60%, exact match to registration.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Portal-wide field-coupling/shared-template artifact, not Tibetan-specific. | Yes. | true→true | Reuses+extends tranche-2 finding — refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | Denominator dilution: large standardized institutions dominate the record-weighted state rate, masking small-collection heterogeneity. | Yes. | true→true | See below — favors, decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors)** |
| r3 | Script-to-tradition ontology/outcome-definition artifact — only diagnostic scripts count. | **Not distinct** — identical to Family B's own r2. | true→true | Reuses tranche-2 finding directly. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r1**: tranche 2's 167-distinct-(state,script)-combination finding, each
state dominated by its own ordinary majority script (Devanagari in
Bihar/HP/Rajasthan, Oriya in Odisha, Bengali in WB, Tamil/Grantha/Telugu in
TN/Karnataka), directly against a single shared portal-wide template driving
this uniformly.

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed:**
```sql
-- HP's P(script usable | language blank), record-weighted vs institution-equal-weighted
```
Record-weighted: **90.61%** (matches registration exactly). Institution-
equal-weighted (275 distinct institutions contribute to this 5,727-row
denominator): **57.79%** — a real, substantial 32.8pp drop. Per r2's own
criterion, this is a sharp difference between weighting schemes, genuinely
favoring the rival on the *specific number*. **Caveat, stated plainly:**
even at 57.79%, HP would likely still be the state-level outlier (tranche
2's next-highest state, West Bengal, was 51.8% under RECORD-weighting; we
did not recompute every other state under institution-weighting for a fully
apples-to-apples comparison) — so the qualitative "HP is anomalous" story
plausibly survives even though the specific 90.6% figure does not. Filed
LIVE (favors) rather than a full discharge either way, because both halves
of that last sentence are genuine and neither has been fully verified.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE CHANGE.** Family B
alone: STRENGTHENED (both Grok rivals REFUTED, tranche 2). Family A's r2
stays LIVE (favors) — combined grade drops to **INTERPOLATION-ONLY**.

---

## r3-b1-27 — "script outranks language facet" routing basis never exceeds 0.1%

*(HP's own numbers confirmed stable post-re-versioning: 107/323,468 =
0.033%, exact match.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Script defaulted/imputed from language, non-independent fields; needs blind expert image audit. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Denominator dilution: pathway concentrated in a few specialist repositories, diluted by the state-wide denominator. | Yes. | true→true | See below — refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Selection into the catalogue/repository-participation bias, external. | Yes. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**r2 test**: reuses tranche 2's institutional breakdown of HP's 107 records
(~20 institutions, top institution Library of Tibetan Works and Archives
holds only 12/107 = 11.2% of the pathway) — and, at the REPOSITORY's own
scale (12 of LTWA's own 53,727 total records), that "adequately sized"
repository doesn't clear 0.1% internally either (12/53,727 = 0.02%). Per
r2's own criterion ("adequately sized repositories exceed 0.1%") — none do,
even the largest.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE CHANGE.** Family B
alone: STRENGTHENED (both Grok rivals REFUTED, tranche 2). Family A's r1
and r3 are BOTH LIVE (both correctly NOT-COMPUTABLE, matching GPT's own
flags) — either one alone is sufficient to drop the combined grade to
**INTERPOLATION-ONLY**.

---

## r3-b1-31 — THE ZOMBIE. Sanskritic > vernacular in every state except one

**Conjecture's own §7 status is UNCHANGED by anything below, and is
restated per the task's explicit instruction:** the kill condition (2-of-3
named states flipping) is unfireable-as-worded (Gujarat left the batch;
only J&K/Assam of the three deciders landed), but Assam (ratio 0.711) and
**Manipur** (ratio 0.0499, not even a named decider) both flipped
vernacular-dominant, giving **three** genuine exception states against a
claim of exactly one unique exception. Substantively dead as worded,
regardless of rival outcomes.

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Institutional-priority/concentration artifact (a few large vernacular-focused repositories). | Yes. | true→true | Reuses+extends tranche-2 table. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | Cataloguing-convention/label-crosswalk sensitivity (matched-works, alternate token rules). | Yes. | true→true | Reuses tranche-2 language-token finding. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Record-granularity/bulk-import-batch effect (vernacular finely enumerated, sanskritic bundled). | Yes. | true→true | See below — via diffuseness proxy. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r1**: reuses tranche 2's institutional-concentration table (Odisha most
diffuse of ALL 5 states compared, 27,677 distinct institutions, top-3 only
6.02%; the calibration case West Bengal, NOT vernacular-dominant, is the
MOST concentrated, top-3 64.18%) — the opposite of what an
institutional-priority story predicts.

**r2**: reuses tranche 2's `language_token` composition finding (Odisha
99.25% `oriya`, Assam 87.76% `asamese`, Manipur 98.86% `bengali` — all
canonical, unambiguous, distinct Indo-Aryan language names, no plausible
boundary reading toward Sanskrit).

**r3 test**: no true batch/shelfmark identifier exists for NAMAMI at this
scope (established repeatedly); substitute proxy — the SAME institutional-
diffuseness figures used for r1 directly answer r3's "one or a few
institutions/batches" prediction too: Odisha's 414,417 `indo_aryan` records
spread across 27,677 distinct institutions is the opposite of batch
concentration.

**Draft grade: RIVALS-DISCHARGED / CLAIM SUPERSEDED (unchanged composite,
now on a broader evidentiary base).** Family B: both rivals refuted, ratified
as this composite class by the tranche-2 countersignature. Family A: all
three ALSO refuted — five of five total rivals across both families now
land REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA, which if anything strengthens the "the
mechanism-type is real" half of the composite reading, while leaving the
"substantively dead as worded" half exactly as dead as before. No grade
change; Family A reinforces rather than challenges the existing
countersigned composite.

---

## r3-b1-32 — Single most common routing basis accounts for ≥35%

*(See MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING FINDING — the tightest case moved from Bihar
40.62% to Andhra Pradesh 63.58%, a much larger margin.)*

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Repository-composition/institutional-concentration drives the plurality, not a fragmentation floor. | Yes. | true→true | See below, on the NEW tightest case — refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | Structural pathway imbalance: only 2–3 of 6 bases ever carry real volume. | Yes. | true→true | See below, on the NEW tightest case — refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Record-denominator overcounting via duplicate/component/multi-volume expansion. | Yes. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r1/r2 tests, re-run on the CURRENT tightest case (Andhra Pradesh, not the
stale Bihar figure):**
```sql
SELECT basis, count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51 AND raw->>'holding_state_id'='2' GROUP BY 1;
```
AP's plurality basis (`language_facet_south_asian`, 85,035/133,745=63.58%)
resolves **100%** to `tradition='sanskrit'` — genuine, real content, not a
taxonomy artifact (r1 refuted). Top-2-basis cumulative share
(`language_facet_south_asian`+`language_exception`) = 92.3% of AP — not
remotely a "thin margin among 2–3 barely-dominant pathways" case (r2
refuted, at an even wider margin than tranche 2 found for old-Bihar's
70.08%).

**r3 test, genuinely new, executed** (title+institution clustering, since
shelfmark is unavailable — one of GPT's own named acceptable identifiers):
```sql
-- AP plurality-basis share, record-weighted vs (institute_raw||title) cluster-weighted
```
Record-weighted: 63.58% (n=133,745). Cluster-weighted: **60.41%**
(n=84,299 distinct institute+title pairs) — only a −3.17pp shift, staying
far above the 35% floor either way. REFUTED — not remotely sensitive to
record-level pseudoreplication.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED (unchanged)** — all three Family A rivals
REFUTED, matching Family B's own clean STRENGTHENED. Worth noting: this is
the one NAMAMI-routing conjecture in the "flipped" cluster (06/17/24/26/27)
that does NOT flip, because its own re-tested numbers (on current, not
stale, data) turned out to have an even larger comfort margin than
registration ever had.

---

## r3-b1-33 — Hindi-belt non-Latin institution-name fraction, cleanly separated

*(Not touched by the tradition-routing re-versioning — a different field,
institution-NAME script, not language/script routing basis.)*

**Binding annotation carried forward** (registration doc §6): an
independent investigation already traced part of Rajasthan's/MP's high
figures to 108/1 Kannada-script institute names from one out-of-state
Karnataka cataloguing centre (NIPSR) — this is that disclosed confound's
mechanism-grading moment, regardless of what any rival says.

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Regional cataloguing-centre/digitization-campaign clustering, continuous with the disclosed NIPSR finding. | Yes. | true→true | Reuses tranche-2's Kannada-block exclusion test. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (as submitted; narrower residual open)** |
| r2 | Holdings-weighted/institution-size concentration, not administrative-language convention. | Yes — a NEW angle vs. Grok (which tested script-based suppression, not size). | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Any-non-Latin-character classifier is sensitive to annotation/address contamination, not the institution's own core name. | Yes. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r1**: reuses tranche 2's Kannada-block exclusion test directly (Rajasthan
92.24%→82.27%, MP 60.48%→59.11%, Bihar — the actual bottleneck state —
unaffected at 45.03%, separation survives at full magnitude); same
Devanagira-entry-centre residual caveat carried forward as an open
sub-question.

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed** (Bihar, the belt bottleneck state):
```sql
-- Bihar non-Latin institution-name share, all institutions vs excluding its top-5
```
All: 45.03%. Excluding Bihar's top-5 institutions: **47.06%** — the share
*rises*, not falls, when the largest institutions are removed. Directly
against r2's own prediction ("the state separation collapses under
institution-equal weighting, is driven by a few repositories").

**r3 test, genuinely new, executed** (sampled the actual belt non-Latin
institute_raw strings):
```sql
SELECT raw->>'institute_raw', count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
WHERE source_id=51 AND raw->>'holding_state_id'='5' AND (raw->>'institute_raw' ~ '[^\x00-\x7F]') GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2 DESC LIMIT 10;
```
Bihar's top 10 non-Latin institute names are **entirely** Devanagari,
start-to-finish (केन्द्रीय पुस्तकालय = "Central Library"; बिहार राष्ट्रभाषा
परिषद = "Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad"; श्री जैन सिद्धान्त भवन ग्रंथागार;
etc.) — full institution names rendered in Devanagari, not Latin core names
with a short appended non-Latin fragment. Per r3's own criterion ("the
stated mechanism predicts that the core institution names themselves are
commonly rendered in non-Latin script and that the separation survives
these recodings") — this is precisely what is observed; the rival's own
"annotation contamination" alternative is not.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — mechanically, all three
Family A rivals now land REFUTED (a stronger showing than Family B's own
mixed r1-refuted/r2-live split), but Family B's r2 (needs an independent
directory/original-entry view, correctly NOT-COMPUTABLE) alone still
guarantees INTERPOLATION-ONLY per the combined rule. **Flagged as a
positive, not a routine result**: the base conjecture's specific disclosed
threat (NIPSR/Kannada) and TWO further, genuinely new rival mechanisms
(size-weighting, character-position) have now all been tested directly
against the bottleneck state and none of them threatens the separation.

---

## r3-b1-34 — holdings-vs-origin integrity flag, 100% correct

**Registered mechanism, verbatim**: not a substantive world-claim; verifies
the harvest's own bookkeeping. **Amendment #9 (tranche-2 ruling 2) applies**:
bookkeeping-integrity point-nulls are exempt from ordinary mechanism
grading; a rival to one challenges the harness, not the graveyard.

| Rival | Mechanism | Distinct? | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Hard-coded constant, not a per-record decision. | **Not distinct** — restates the registered text's own admission. | true→true | Confirmed by code + query. | **RIVAL-DEFECTIVE (not distinct) — valid methodological note** |
| r2 | Conditioned/NULL-unsafe test denominator could hide false values. | **Not distinct** — elaborates the same disclosed framing. | true→true | See below — confirmed zero exceptions even NULL-safe. | **RIVAL-DEFECTIVE (not distinct) — valid methodological note** |

**r2 test, extends tranche 2's version with an explicit NULL-safe
predicate:**
```sql
SELECT (raw->'holding_is_not_origin') IS DISTINCT FROM 'true'::jsonb, count(*)
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51 GROUP BY 1;
```
All 4,857,263 rows: `true`, zero exceptions, confirmed even under a
NULL-safe comparison that would catch missing/false/null values r2 worries
the ordinary test might silently exclude. Both rivals TRUE and
non-competing, exactly as tranche 2 found for Grok's identically-shaped
pair.

**Draft grade: INTEGRITY-VERIFIED (unchanged, Amendment #9)** — not a
mechanism-grading question regardless of family; both Family A rivals join
Family B's in confirming the bookkeeping is sound.

---

## r3-b1-35 — date_precision='unknown' on 100% of records (strict sibling of -01)

Same natural experiment, re-run fresh:
```sql
SELECT raw->>'namami_detail_fetched', date_precision, count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51 GROUP BY 1,2;
```
Identical to the r3-b1-01/tranche-2 snapshot: list-only 0/4,845,289 dated;
detail-fetched 210/11,974 (1.754%) dated. Both Family A rivals (true
source-wide absence; portal-wide list-output suppression) are the identical
pair to -01's, refuted the identical way.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED (unchanged).**

---

## r3-b1-40 — extent_leaves populated on <0.5% (India-only sibling of -08)

Same natural experiment, re-run fresh:
```sql
SELECT raw->>'namami_detail_fetched', (extent_leaves IS NOT NULL), count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=51 GROUP BY 1,2;
```
List-only 0/4,845,289 populated (0.000%); detail-fetched 11,862/11,974
(99.065%) populated — identical to r3-b1-08/tranche-2. Both Family A rivals
(true absence; portal-wide suppression) refuted identically.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED (unchanged).**

---

# PART 2 — r2-edh-b1 (EDH / Roman inscriptions), 19 conjectures, 56 rivals

**Architecture facts established up front** (`edh_census.py` read in full;
full raw-key inventory run): source_id=68, slug `edh`, 81,855 rows, 28 raw
keys total (`commentary, country, depth, diplomatic_text, findspot,
findspot_ancient, findspot_modern, height, id, language, last_update,
letter_size, literature, material, modern_region, not_after, not_before,
present_location, religion, responsible_individual, _scriptome_harvest,
transcription, trismegistos_uri, type_of_inscription, type_of_monument,
width, work_status, year_of_find`). **No latitude/longitude field exists
anywhere** — confirmed by the complete key listing — so any rival proposing
a coordinate-based equal-area grid is NOT-COMPUTABLE regardless of its own
flag. `trismegistos` (source_id=55) is registered but holds 0 rows; no
second Roman-epigraphy corpus exists on this box (reconfirms tranche 3's own
headline finding). `medium_class="unknown"`, `target_unit="physical_object"`,
`tradition="other"` by deliberate design (firewalled off the manuscript
census).

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Real ancient production-intensity (urbanization/military/admin), external data needed. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Differential physical survival/preservation, external proxies needed. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Province-boundary/unit-size artifact via an equal-area grid built from findspot coordinates. | **true→false** | No lat/lon field exists (confirmed, full 28-key inventory). | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — all 5 rivals across both
families (2 Grok + 3 GPT) NOT-COMPUTABLE; the single sharpest, cleanest
confirmation this tranche of tranche-3's "EDH holds no comparandum of any
kind" headline finding.

---

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Alphabetical-split artifact — same mechanism as Grok's own r1. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's random-partition simulation directly (99.94% of 10,000 partitions also keep max<30%). | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | EDH's own multi-contributor cataloguing/publication strategy structurally prevents dominance — but, unlike Grok's identically-themed r2 (external corpus, correctly NOT-COMPUTABLE), GPT's own test is answerable from OUR contributor metadata. | true→true | See below — genuinely NEW, close. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, close)** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, computable where Grok's equivalent was not,
executed:**
```sql
SELECT raw->>'responsible_individual', count(*) FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord
WHERE source_id=68 AND raw->'_scriptome_harvest'->>'province_code' IN (<32 holdout codes>) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2 DESC;
```
Top contributor (Feraudi): 11,361/38,691 = **29.37%** of the entire
32-province holdout — just under the 30% province-level ceiling, and
spanning **29 of 32** provinces. Second (Gräf): 10,170/38,691 = 26.28%,
spanning **30 of 32**. Per r2's own criterion ("one identifiable effort
accounting for at least 30% of a partition while its records are dispersed
across many provinces would favor this rival") — Feraudi comes within 0.6pp
of that threshold while touching nearly the whole province set, real,
if not-quite-dispositive, support. A genuinely new finding: Family B
correctly diagnosed this shape of mechanism but marked it not-computable;
Family A found a computable proxy (our own `responsible_individual` field)
that Grok did not use.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged; was already IO under Family
B alone).**

---

## r2-edh-b1-03 — Heavy-tailed province-size shape recurs

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Fixed heavy-tailed 65-list, any balanced partition reproduces the shape — same mechanism as Grok's own r1. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's simulation (94.59% of partitions satisfy both floors jointly). | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, same amendment-#10-adjacent finding)** |
| r2 | EDH's own decades-long coverage-policy concentration (many minor provinces lightly recorded, a handful concentrated). | true→true | Contributor-reach data (from -02, above) shows the top 2 contributors touch nearly ALL provinces — weak, inconclusive support against a "few provinces neglected by policy" story specifically. | **RIVAL-LIVE (weak, inconclusive)** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged).**

---

## r2-edh-b1-04 — Date-coverage heterogeneity

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Genre/completeness/preservation composition drives the extremes, not province-specific practice. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW, refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r2 | Source-corpus selection/inclusion-rule concentration by province, external near-exhaustive inventory needed. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r3 | Source/batch-level date-encoding convention, geographic clustering of import batches. | true→true | Reuses Grok r1's already-decisive contributor-trace (same contributor, opposite rates by province — the best available proxy for "batch" in this schema). | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r1 test, genuinely new, decisive, executed** (within-genre-stratum
province comparison, MaT vs. Nor — a stricter test than Grok's own,
addressing composition head-on):
```sql
SELECT province, type_of_inscription, count(*), count(*) FILTER (WHERE date_start IS NOT NULL)
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=68 AND province IN ('MaT','Nor') GROUP BY 1,2 HAVING count(*)>=15;
```
MaT's `epitaph` category: 18 rows, 5 dated = **27.8%**. Nor's `epitaph`
category: 1,435 rows, **1,435** dated = **100%**. The SAME genre, held
constant, still shows a massive residual province effect (27.8% vs. 100%)
— directly against r1's own criterion ("province effects become small
within composition-and-preservation strata"). Also corroborates Grok's own
already-refuted r1 (same contributors, Gräf/Feraudi, near-100% dated on Nor
but 16–42% on MaT) — two independent, convergent refutations of "it's
composition/contributor, not province."

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE CHANGE.** Family B
alone: STRENGTHENED (both Grok rivals REFUTED — contributor-trace and
binomial simulation, tranche 3). Family A's r2 stays LIVE (external
inventory, correctly not-computable) even though its OTHER two rivals
(r1, r3) are both freshly, decisively refuted — the combined grade drops to
**INTERPOLATION-ONLY** purely because of the one rival needing data neither
family can supply.

---

## r2-edh-b1-06 — Exact-precision dating ≤40%

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | EDH's own editorial convention prefers ranges even when a year is knowable, needs scholarly re-examination. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Type-composition limit: exact dates concentrate in specific genres, same mechanism as Grok's own r2. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's finding directly (military diploma 65.53% exact, stays a corpus-wide minority). | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors)** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — feeds 06's existing
pre-committed near-boundary watch (true margin 1.86pp) exactly as tranche 3
flagged; both annotations travel together per that ruling.

---

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

Both GPT r1s propose the identical multinomial-sampling-artifact mechanism
Grok's own r1s already tested and found decisive (P(breach)=0.000000 at
every eligible province, both genre N=151–3,813 and material N=53–3,737).
GPT's own test description asks for a **permutation** (sampling without
replacement from the realized label pool) rather than a multinomial draw
(with replacement); at this population scale (61,229 typed rows for genre,
37,002 for material, against province samples of 151–3,813) the finite-
population correction between the two methods is negligible — they are
statistically indistinguishable at the precision either test reports
(P≈0.000000). **This equivalence is stated explicitly rather than silently
assumed**: re-running a full 10,000-rep permutation for both conjectures'
~20 provinces each was not repeated this pass given the reuse is
methodologically sound, not a shortcut around a different answer. Both
GPT r2s propose the identical cataloguing-intensity/contributor-volume
mechanism Grok's own r2s already tested (small-`responsible_individual`-
volume slices within Noricum/Pannonia superior fail the exact floors the
province aggregate clears easily).

**Draft grade for both: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged).** **Amendment #10
(UNINFORMATIVE-band) applies to both**, exactly as the tranche-3
countersignature ordered — these floors carry no survival credit regardless
of family.

---

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Genre-dependent classification ease inflates the typed denominator toward epitaph, needs blind re-typing. | **true→false** | Needs human blind classification of untyped rows. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Site/publication-cluster pseudoreplication — a few large necropolis corpora dominate. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW, refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed** (findspot-cluster exclusion, three
sampled large provinces):
```sql
-- epitaph/votive share of typed rows, all findspots vs excluding the single largest findspot
```

| Province | All findspots | Excl. largest findspot |
|---|---:|---:|
| Dacia | 67.49% | 64.47% |
| Noricum | 75.54% | 71.40% |
| Pannonia superior | 73.30% | **76.12%** (rises) |

Even after excluding each province's single largest findspot, epitaph/
votive stays a commanding 64–76% majority — nowhere close to being
overtaken by any other single genre (which would be needed for it to lose
"plurality" status). Per r2's own criterion ("removing one or a few
necropolis clusters reverses the result in enough provinces to fall below
85%[-of-provinces]") — it does not, in any of the three sampled.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged; r1 still LIVE).**

---

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

Both GPT r1s (modern recovery/museum-collection intensity, external
archaeological reports needed) are NOT-COMPUTABLE, matching both Grok r1s.
Both GPT r2s reproduce Grok's own already-tested, already-refuted
mechanisms exactly: -11's "general construction-volume, non-military
proxy" (reuses Pearson r=0.1138, no relationship) and -12's "idiosyncratic-
cache/bulk-assemblage concentration" (reuses findspot-diffuseness: Raetia
18 findspots/top 20%, Noricum 9 findspots/top 31%, both clear the floor of
3 by 10×+ even excluding the top findspot).

**Draft grade for both: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — substantive
finding favors the base conjecture in both cases (its one internally-
testable rival is refuted); the external-data rival is the sole reason
either stays short of STRENGTHENED, on both families independently.

---

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

**The single most consequential finding of this whole batch.** Family B
(Grok) declared `no_viable_rival: true` for this conjecture — the only such
declaration of the entire rivals stage — with its own stated reasoning that
no alternative of comparable plausibility exists for "the standard
historical account." **Family A minted two rivals anyway.**

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Region-by-language selection inherited from EDH's own source corpora (Latin-focused Western publications vs. more complete Eastern coverage). | false→false (agree) | Needs an independent site-complete inventory. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Record-weighted denominator/site-and-genre-composition, not a province-wide linguistic boundary — equal-site-weighting vs. inscription-weighting. | true→true, **but not fully executed this pass** | See below — partial. | **RIVAL-LIVE (computable, not fully executed)** |

**r2 — honesty note, not a fabricated result.** The test is genuinely
computable: `findspot_ancient`/`findspot_modern` can serve as a site-id
proxy for the equal-weighting recompute GPT's own test literally describes.
A partial run (site-count-per-province across 20 sample provinces) confirms
real site diversity within every province checked (75–1,085 distinct sites
per province, no single-site degenerate cases) — but the FULL West-vs-East
recompute under equal-site-weighting, across the complete 65-province set,
was **not completed within this pass's time budget**. This is disclosed
explicitly, distinct from a genuine NOT-COMPUTABLE call, so the orchestrator
can route it as a cheap, well-specified follow-up rather than a dead end.

**Draft grade: STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED → INTERPOLATION-ONLY — GRADE
CHANGE, and the headline finding of Part 2.** Family B alone:
STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED (no rival minted; the tranche-3 countersignature
explicitly discussed this "unchallenged" label alongside 13's own
knife-edge 80.0000% survival margin). Family A minted two rivals for
exactly this conjecture — the one place in the whole 43-item set where the
two families' rival-minting behavior diverges most sharply. Neither Family
A rival is discharged (one genuinely not-computable, one computable but
unexecuted this pass) — under the combined rule, **"unchallenged" can no
longer be an honest label once one of the two disjoint families has, in
fact, challenged it**, regardless of how those challenges eventually
resolve. The combined grade moves to INTERPOLATION-ONLY. This is squarely a
disjointness-measurement finding, not a verdict on the Jireček line itself
(see §"Rivals Family A found that Family B missed").

---

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

Both GPT rivals (differential survival/destruction of earlier stones;
catalogue-entry/publication filter toward well-studied high-imperial
material) are self-flagged, and reassessed-confirmed, NOT-COMPUTABLE — a
different, more conservative pair than Grok's own (whose r2 was originally
flagged `true` and reversed to `false` by tranche 3). No new
reversal needed; both stay LIVE.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged).**

---

## r2-edh-b1-16 — Compact 6-century peak window ≥90%

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Conditioning on dateability/corpus-scope, needs an independent stratigraphic census. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Chronological interval midpoint/rounding convention, same mechanism as Grok's own r2. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's strict both-endpoints test (Transpadana 82.47%, Thracia 85.95% both flip below 90%). | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, decisive)** |
| r3 | Site/monument-class pseudoreplication (a few dominant sites/batches). | true→true, **not fully executed this pass** | Plausible, findspot-computable, disclosed as unexecuted rather than fabricated. | **RIVAL-LIVE (computable, not fully executed)** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)**, **Amendment #10
(UNINFORMATIVE) applies** via the reused r2 finding regardless of Family A's
r3 status.

---

## r2-edh-b1-18 — Bracket-density floor ≥35%

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Publication selection favors fragmentary/restored inscriptions, external total-recovery sample needed. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Transcription-length/genre opportunity effect (longer texts have more chances to earn a bracket). | true→true | See below — real, modest, non-dispositive. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, modest)** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed:**
```sql
-- bracket-presence rate by transcription-length quartile, corpus-wide
```
Q1 (1–44 chars): 55.92%. Q2 (44–86): 67.62%. Q3 (86–150): 62.65%. Q4
(150+): 72.30%. A real, roughly-monotonic length effect exists (a genuine,
new, disclosed finding — Family B's equivalent r2 needed photograph/squeeze
content we do not hold and was correctly NOT-COMPUTABLE). **But even the
weakest stratum (Q1, 55.92%) clears the 35% floor by a wide margin** — the
registered ceiling's own holdout minimum (39.26%) sits closer to Q1's rate
than to the corpus average, so this length-effect, while real, does not by
itself threaten the floor's survival at any observed magnitude. Filed LIVE
(favors) for the directional claim, explicitly not decisive.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged).**

---

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Denominator-selection: untyped rows are silently excluded, artificially deflating the "uncertain-among-typed" rate — same mechanism as Grok's own r1. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's finding directly (16/23=69.6% of eligible provinces flip PASS→BREACH treating untyped as uncertain). | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, decisive)** |
| r2 | Conservative editorial threshold, not a material ceiling. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — the headline
denominator-artifact finding from tranche 3 (this stage's single most
decisive favors-the-rival result by fraction of the eligible population
affected) applies with identical force to Family A's own r1.

---

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Differential survival of type-diagnostic physical features, external condition data needed. | false→false (agree) | — | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Legacy-source/import-schema field availability, batch/provenance-driven. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's `last_update`-era finding directly (coverage 46%→83% by era, confounded with province). | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors/confounded)** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged).**

---

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Regional cataloguing convention/source-publication clustering by editor. | true→true | Reuses tranche-3's contributor-overlap finding (genuinely mixed — Gräf's Etruria presence without inflated Etruria share; Feraudi's Umbria presence with an even-higher share). | **RIVAL-LIVE (mixed)** |
| r2 | Funerary-vs-nonfunerary denominator, necropolis-corpus concentration. | true→true, **not fully executed this pass** | Plausible, findspot-computable (same method as -09/-12 above), disclosed as unexecuted. | **RIVAL-LIVE (computable, not fully executed)** |
| r3 | Chronological composition (period-specific stele prevalence). | true→true, **not fully executed this pass** | Plausible, date-bucket-computable, disclosed as unexecuted. | **RIVAL-LIVE (computable, not fully executed)** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — the base conjecture's own
Umbria wrinkle (a non-Cisalpine control exceeding the named holdout
target's own share, tranche-3 countersignature ruling 5) carries forward
unaffected.

---

## r2-edh-b1-24 — Date-range width average within [20, 250] years

Both GPT r1/r2 reproduce Grok's own already-tested, already-favoring
mechanisms exactly: r1 (denominator-selection, unknown-precision correlates
with narrower surviving width — reuses Pearson r=−0.6152) and r2
(data-entry-template/round-number-default widths — reuses the modality
finding, 5 specific widths = 56.7% of all 56,909 range-precision rows).

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Denominator-selection. | true→true | Reuses r=−0.6152. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors)** |
| r2 | Template-default width modality. | true→true | Reuses 5-widths/56.7% finding. | **RIVAL-LIVE (favors, decisive)** |
| r3 | Pseudoreplication: shared-dating-decision clusters via corpus/site/object-class. | true→true, **not fully executed this pass** | Plausible, findspot/contributor-computable, disclosed as unexecuted. | **RIVAL-LIVE (computable, not fully executed)** |

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)**, **Amendment #10
(UNINFORMATIVE) applies** via the reused r1/r2 findings.

---

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

| Rival | Mechanism | Grok flag→reassessed | Test result | Draft verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r1 | Inconsistent missing-image coding by data-entry cohort, needs verified actual image-asset presence. | **true→false** | We hold only the `work_status` text label, not image assets/URLs to verify against. | **RIVAL-LIVE** |
| r2 | Object survival/accessibility status (extant/known-location) drives no-image rate, not province resourcing. | true→true | See below — decisive, NEW, refutes. | **RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** |
| r3 | Present-repository/museum image-rights policy, not province. | true→true, **underpowered** | `present_location` sparse (19–29% populated) for the sampled provinces. | **RIVAL-LIVE (underpowered)** |

**r2 test, genuinely new, executed** (using `present_location`
population as a proxy for "known/accessible" object status, the three
provinces tranche 3 already characterized):
```sql
SELECT province, round(100.0*count(*) FILTER (WHERE present_location populated)/count(*),2) pct_located,
  round(100.0*count(*) FILTER (WHERE work_status='no image')/count(*),2) pct_no_image
FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord WHERE source_id=68 AND province IN ('Bae','Afr','Aqu') GROUP BY 1;
```

| Province | pct_located (present_location populated) | pct_no_image |
|---|---:|---:|
| Baetica | **29.24%** | 55.94% |
| Africa Proconsularis | 22.27% | 0.41% |
| Aquitania | 19.25% | 0.23% |

Per r2's own criterion ("no-image status is strongly predicted by object
survival and accessibility variables"), the direction is backwards:
Baetica — by far the WORST for images (55.94% no-image) — is actually the
BEST of the three for present-location population (29.24%, highest of the
three), not the worst. A clean, decisive refutation on the proxy's own
terms.

**Draft grade: INTERPOLATION-ONLY (unchanged)** — a genuine positive for
the base conjecture (its most-testable rival is refuted, on the same method
that gave -20's rival a favoring result — the same useful methodological
pairing tranche 3 flagged, now reproduced by an independent model family).

---

# CLOSING SUMMARY — Family A alone, both batches

## r3-b1 (24 conjectures, 68 rivals)

| Conjecture | r1 | r2 | r3 | Family-A-only grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | REFUTED | REFUTED | — | STRENGTHENED |
| 03 | LIVE | REFUTED | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 04 | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(favors) | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 05 | LIVE | REFUTED | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 06 | REFUTED | LIVE(favors) | REFUTED | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 07 | REFUTED | LIVE | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 08 | REFUTED (sole rival) | — | — | STRENGTHENED |
| 09 | LIVE | LIVE | LIVE(mixed) | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 16 | LIVE | LIVE | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 17 | LIVE | LIVE | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 18 | LIVE | LIVE | LIVE(mixed) | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 19 | LIVE | REFUTED | REFUTED | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 21 | LIVE | REFUTED | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 23 | LIVE | REFUTED | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 24 | LIVE(favors,resolved) | REFUTED | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 25 | LIVE | LIVE | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 26 | REFUTED | LIVE(favors) | REFUTED | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 27 | LIVE | REFUTED | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 31 | REFUTED | REFUTED | REFUTED | STRENGTHENED-ON-RIVALS (zombie unaffected) |
| 32 | REFUTED | REFUTED | REFUTED | STRENGTHENED |
| 33 | REFUTED | REFUTED | REFUTED | STRENGTHENED-ON-RIVALS (FamB r2 still gates combined) |
| 34 | DEFECTIVE | DEFECTIVE | — | INTEGRITY-VERIFIED (Amendment #9) |
| 35 | REFUTED | REFUTED | — | STRENGTHENED |
| 40 | REFUTED | REFUTED | — | STRENGTHENED |

Family-A-only tallies (68 rivals): **26 REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA, 2 DEFECTIVE,
40 LIVE** (of the 40 LIVE: 8 are "computable, not executed this pass" or
genuinely thin/underpowered rather than architecturally impossible — see
the NOT-COMPUTABLE list below for the clean split).

## r2-edh-b1 (19 conjectures, 56 rivals)

| Conjecture | r1 | r2 | r3 | Family-A-only grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | LIVE | LIVE | LIVE | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 02 | REFUTED | LIVE(favors) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 03 | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(weak) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 04 | REFUTED | LIVE | REFUTED | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 06 | LIVE | LIVE(favors) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 07 | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(favors) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) |
| 08 | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(favors) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) |
| 09 | LIVE | REFUTED | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 11 | LIVE | REFUTED | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 12 | LIVE | REFUTED | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 13 | LIVE | LIVE(unexecuted) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 14 | LIVE | LIVE | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 16 | LIVE | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(unexecuted) | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) |
| 18 | LIVE | LIVE(favors,modest) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 19 | LIVE(favors) | LIVE | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 20 | LIVE | LIVE(favors) | — | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 23 | LIVE(mixed) | LIVE(unexecuted) | LIVE(unexecuted) | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |
| 24 | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(favors) | LIVE(unexecuted) | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) |
| 25 | LIVE | REFUTED | LIVE(underpowered) | INTERPOLATION-ONLY |

Family-A-only tallies (56 rivals): **9 REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA, 0 DEFECTIVE,
47 LIVE** (of the 47: 7 explicitly "computable, not executed this pass" —
see below).

**Programme-wide Family A totals (124 rivals): 35 REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA, 2
DEFECTIVE, 87 LIVE.**

---

# NOT-COMPUTABLE list — missing datum (both batches)

*(Distinguishes genuine architectural impossibility from "computable, not
executed this pass" — the latter are marked separately so they read as
cheap follow-ups, not dead ends.)*

| Rival | Proposed test | Missing datum |
|---|---|---|
| r3-b1-03-r1 | Blind human re-dating of currently-undated Genizah fragments | Human paleographic labor — not held |
| r3-b1-03-r3 | Cross-source genre/region/document-type stratification | No shared, cross-walkable vocabulary across MPO/Fragmentarium/Ktiv (extends tranche-1's script/language finding) |
| r3-b1-04-r3 | Parent-work-family record clustering via shelfmark | `normalized_shelfmark` 99.87% blank on korcis at enumeration grain |
| r3-b1-05-r1 | Blind human re-segmentation of parent records | Human recataloguing labor — not held |
| r3-b1-05-r3 | New independent, uniformly-catalogued probability sample | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r3-b1-07-r2 | Folio-range/codicological-unit reconstruction | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r3-b1-09-r1 | Cross-source genre/document-type reweighting | Same missing vocabulary as r3-b1-03-r3 |
| r3-b1-16-r2 | Independent field/administrative institution census | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r3-b1-16-r3 / r3-b1-17-r2 | manus_code/Record No. physical-object linkage at scale | Only exists on the 11,974-row detail pilot, none of the binding states |
| r3-b1-17-r1 | External institution capture-fraction data | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r3-b1-17-r3 | Institution-administrative-type classification | Would require freshly building a taxonomy — not sitting in held data |
| r3-b1-18-r1 | Contributor/campaign coverage audit | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r3-b1-18-r2 | Department/branch/address sub-fields | Not held beyond literal institute_raw text |
| r3-b1-19-r1 | Independent Tibetan-collection inventory audit | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r3-b1-21-r1 | Blind symmetric independent taxonomy recoding | Human recoding labor — not held |
| r3-b1-21-r3 / r3-b1-23-r1 / r3-b1-25-r3 / r3-b1-27-r1/r3 | External repository census / accession registers / image audit | Not held (all GPT's own correct flags) |
| r3-b1-23-r3 | Pre-portal-normalization payload layer | We hold only what the public list page already displays — no deeper layer exists to us |
| r3-b1-24-r3 | Historical raw-payload snapshots by harvest date | Not retained; the drift found was a routing-code re-version, not source-side recataloguing |
| r3-b1-25-r2 | Duplicate-record/shelfmark clustering | Same shelfmark-absence problem as r16/r17/r19 |
| r2-edh-b1-01 (all 3) | Urbanization/military/admin proxies; preservation proxies; findspot coordinates | None held; **no lat/lon field exists anywhere in EDH's 28 raw keys** |
| r2-edh-b1-02-r2 / -03-r2 | (Partially addressed via `responsible_individual` — see LIVE(favors) entries; residual "editorial policy" claim needs an external corpus) | Not held |
| r2-edh-b1-04-r2 | Near-exhaustive independent regional inventory | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r2-edh-b1-06-r1 | Scholarly re-examination of dated inscriptions | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r2-edh-b1-09-r1 | Blind re-typing of untyped rows | Human labor — not held |
| r2-edh-b1-11-r1 / -12-r1 | Independent regional archaeological reports | Not held (GPT's own correct flags) |
| r2-edh-b1-13-r1 | Independent site-complete epigraphic inventory | Not held |
| r2-edh-b1-14 (both) | Stratigraphic dating / independent recovery series; publication-bias inventory | Not held (both GPT's own correct flags) |
| r2-edh-b1-16-r1 | Independent stratigraphic census | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r2-edh-b1-18-r1 | Total-recovery sample without publication-filter preference | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r2-edh-b1-19-r2 | Independent liberal-flagging re-audit | Human labor — not held |
| r2-edh-b1-20-r1 | Independent condition assessments/photographs | Not held (GPT's own correct flag) |
| r2-edh-b1-25-r1 | Verified actual image-asset presence | We hold only the `work_status` text label, not image content/URLs |

**"Computable, not executed this pass"** (a distinct, honestly-flagged
sub-category — genuinely testable with held fields, cheap follow-ups):
r2-edh-b1-13-r2 (equal-site-weighting via findspot, full 65-province
recompute), r2-edh-b1-16-r3 (site/batch pseudoreplication via findspot),
r2-edh-b1-23-r2/r3 (funerary-denominator via findspot; chronological
standardization via date buckets), r2-edh-b1-24-r3 (shared-dating-decision
clustering via findspot/contributor), r2-edh-b1-25-r3 (present-repository
cross-classification, though likely underpowered given `present_location`'s
sparse population in the sampled provinces).

---

# CONTESTABLE CALLS (required output — for routing to the other model family)

| Item | Call | Confidence | Why contestable |
|---|---|---|---|
| r3-b1-01-r2 | REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (not DEFECTIVE) | Medium | Rival's mechanism presupposes an "enumerator-output date interface" the architecture doesn't have — closer to tranche-1's 06-r1 DEFECTIVE shape than to tranche-2's REFUTED trio |
| r3-b1-06-r1 | REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (not DEFECTIVE) | Medium | Same shape: FANKHA's zone-index architecture doesn't really support a "parent item" concept the rival needs |
| r3-b1-06-r2 | Distinct from Grok's r1 (institutional-feed incompleteness) | Medium | A reasonable reader could see GPT's "normalization/lookup-table gap" framing as substantially the same underlying claim as Grok's still-LIVE r1, just at a different causal layer |
| r3-b1-18-r3 | Distinct from Grok's r2 (historical-accident/mega-institution) | Medium | Both propose "flagship institution alone, regardless of landscape size, drives concentration" — GPT's framing (institution-count regression) differs but the substance may not |
| r3-b1-24-r1 | Filed RIVAL-LIVE (favors, resolved), not REFUTED | Low-medium — genuinely novel situation | The rival's mechanism was TRUE and has since been corrected in the live data between tranche 2 and this pass; no existing precedent covers "a rival whose account turned out right and the fix is visible in real time" — flagged for an explicit ruling, not just a label choice |
| r2-edh-b1-13 (both rivals) | Combined grade moves off STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED to INTERPOLATION-ONLY purely because Family A minted rivals where Family B abstained | Medium-high on the mechanical grade rule, but genuinely contestable whether "unchallenged" should be judged per-family or in aggregate — see closing items |
| r2-edh-b1-13-r2, -16-r3, -23-r2/r3, -24-r3 | Filed LIVE ("computable, not executed") rather than either REFUTED or a clean NOT-COMPUTABLE | Disclosed, not really contestable on the facts, but the CATEGORY itself (a third bucket beyond the protocol's two) is a process choice the orchestrator may want to formalize or reject |

---

# RIVALS FAMILY A FOUND THAT FAMILY B MISSED (and vice versa)

Reported factually per the brief's instruction — raw material for a
disjointness measurement, not a correlation statistic.

**Family A found, Family B did not (new mechanisms or newly-computable
angles on Family B's own mechanism-type):**

- **r3-b1-03-r2 / r3-b1-05-r2**: a shelfmark/physical-object
  pseudoreplication mechanism (parent-manuscript over-counting) for both
  the fragment-mean-date and contained-text-ratio conjectures. Family B
  never proposed this family of confound for either conjecture. Both
  turned out REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA (decisively for -05, more mixed for -03
  given Ktiv's missing shelfmark data).
- **r3-b1-04-r2**: institution/contributing-library-level `medium_class`
  heterogeneity for korcis (12.18%–100.00% unknown-rate spread across
  libraries) — Family B's own equivalent rival needed classifier internals
  and was correctly not-computable; Family A used a field (repository
  identity) we actually hold instead. LIVE (favors, decisive).
- **r3-b1-06-r2**: the FANKHA siglum-legibility finding (unresolved sigla
  are recognizable major-library names, not garbage) — a genuinely
  different, narrower claim from either Family B rival.
- **r3-b1-19-r2/r3**: the HP title-diversity and full-state Tibetan-
  aggregation tests — Family B's own r1/r2 for this conjecture took a
  different (cataloguing-intensity, tagging-completeness) angle; both of
  Family A's rivals were decisively refuted on new evidence.
- **r3-b1-21-r2, r3-b1-26-r2, r3-b1-33-r2**: institutional-dilution/
  equal-weighting tests (excluding top institutions, or reweighting by
  institution rather than record) — a recurring Family-A-specific test
  family Family B did not use anywhere in the NAMAMI routing batch. Mixed
  results: r21-r2 and r33-r2 REFUTED; r26-r2 genuinely FAVORS the rival
  (the one place this test family found real sensitivity).
- **r2-edh-b1-02-r2**: using `responsible_individual` as a computable proxy
  for "EDH's own construction process," where Grok's identically-themed r2
  needed an external corpus. The single cleanest "Family A found a
  computable route to a mechanism Family B correctly diagnosed but marked
  not-computable" case in the EDH batch.
- **r2-edh-b1-13**: Family A minted 2 rivals for the one conjecture Family
  B explicitly declined to challenge (`no_viable_rival: true`) — see the
  dedicated discussion above and in the closing items.
- **r2-edh-b1-18-r2, -25-r2**: transcription-length and present-location
  proxies, both genuinely new angles vs. Family B's photograph/squeeze- and
  survival-content rivals (both correctly not-computable for Family B).

**Family B found, Family A did not (confounds Grok named that GPT's own
three rivals never touched for the same conjecture):**

- **r3-b1-07**: Grok's r2 (composite-codex/codicological-unit splitting —
  scribes attributed to separate bound-together units, not genuine
  co-production) has no GPT analogue; GPT's three rivals cluster around
  event-vs-identity non-dedup and cataloguing-workflow instead.
- **r3-b1-09**: Grok's r2 (independent secure-vs-range-only dating
  classification) is a cleaner, more directly falsifiable framing than any
  of GPT's three (composition/pipeline/denominator); GPT never proposed an
  external-ground-truth-classification rival here at all.
- **r3-b1-16 / r3-b1-17**: Grok's r2 for -16 (survey-coverage/undercoverage
  of small private collections) is echoed by GPT, but Grok's OWN framing of
  the "portal-completeness ≠ population-completeness" distinction is sharper
  and named explicitly; GPT's -17-r1 (capture-fraction-by-institution-rank)
  covers similar ground but from the opposite end (differential depth
  within captured institutions, not differential capture of whole
  institutions).
- **r2-edh-b1-11**: Grok's r1 (modern recovery/museum-collection intensity)
  and GPT's r1 are near-identical in substance — no clean Grok-only finding
  here, but Grok's supplementary `present_location`-diffuseness proxy (20
  distinct locations for Raetia's instrumentum finds, none dominant) is a
  concrete positive Grok ran that GPT's own rivals never prompted a
  Family-A-side test of.
- **r2-edh-b1-14-r2**: Grok's own r2 (modern scholarly-publication priority
  for classic-Principate material) triggered tranche 3's `last_update`-era
  supplementary proxy (0/18 holdout-eligible provinces flip outside the
  peak bucket by era) — GPT's own r2 for the same conjecture is a
  differently-worded version of nearly the same claim, so this is a
  near-miss rather than a clean "Grok found, GPT missed," but GPT's version
  was self-flagged not-computable in a way that forwent even attempting
  the supplementary proxy Grok's version prompted.

**Headline for the disjointness measurement**: the two families' rival
landscapes overlap heavily in MECHANISM-TYPE (denominator artifacts,
selection effects, unit-of-count mismatches, batch/contributor confounds
recur in both) but diverge sharply in which of those types each family
manages to render COMPUTABLE against our held schema — Family A leaned much
harder on institution/contributor-level reweighting and shelfmark/title
clustering (a real strength: several of these produced the tranche's
sharpest new REFUTED findings), while Family B leaned harder on cross-
tabulating the routing instrument's own basis/status vocabularies directly
(also a real strength, and the source of most of tranche 1–2's decisive
NAMAMI refutations). Neither family is a strict subset of the other's
testing strategy.

---

# COMBINED GRADE SUMMARY — both families, all 43 survivors

**r3-b1 (24), combined:**

| id | Family B alone | Family A rivals | **COMBINED** | Changed? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | STRENGTHENED | both REFUTED | **STRENGTHENED** | no |
| 03 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 04 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE(favors×2) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 05 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 06 | STRENGTHENED | 2 REFUTED, 1 LIVE(favors) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 07 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 REFUTED, 2 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 08 | STRENGTHENED | REFUTED | **STRENGTHENED** | no |
| 09 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 16 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 17 | STRENGTHENED | all 3 LIVE (none computable) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 18 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 19 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 2 REFUTED | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 21 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 23 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 24 | STRENGTHENED | 1 LIVE(favors,resolved), 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 25 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 26 | STRENGTHENED | 2 REFUTED, 1 LIVE(favors) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 27 | STRENGTHENED | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 31 | RIVALS-DISCHARGED/SUPERSEDED | all 3 REFUTED | **RIVALS-DISCHARGED/SUPERSEDED** (reinforced, zombie status unchanged) | no |
| 32 | STRENGTHENED | all 3 REFUTED | **STRENGTHENED** | no |
| 33 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 REFUTED | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (Family B's own r2 still gates it) | no |
| 34 | INTEGRITY-VERIFIED | both DEFECTIVE | **INTEGRITY-VERIFIED** | no |
| 35 | STRENGTHENED | both REFUTED | **STRENGTHENED** | no |
| 40 | STRENGTHENED | both REFUTED | **STRENGTHENED** | no |

**r3-b1 combined tallies: STRENGTHENED 5 (01,08,32,35,40) ·
INTERPOLATION-ONLY 17 (03,04,05,06,07,09,16,17,18,19,21,23,24,25,26,27,33) ·
INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1 (34) · SUPERSEDED 1 (31).** Five grade changes, all
STRENGTHENED→INTERPOLATION-ONLY: **06, 17, 24, 26, 27.**

**r2-edh-b1 (19), combined:**

| id | Family B alone | Family A rivals | **COMBINED** | Changed? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 02 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE(favors) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 03 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 04 | STRENGTHENED | 2 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 06 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 07 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) | both LIVE(favors) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (UNINFORMATIVE) | no |
| 08 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) | both LIVE(favors) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (UNINFORMATIVE) | no |
| 09 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 11 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 12 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 13 | STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED | 2 minted, both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | **YES — flip** |
| 14 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 16 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (UNINFORMATIVE) | no |
| 18 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 19 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (headline) | both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 20 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | both LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 23 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |
| 24 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY (UNINFORMATIVE) | all 3 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (UNINFORMATIVE) | no |
| 25 | INTERPOLATION-ONLY | 1 LIVE, 1 REFUTED, 1 LIVE | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | no |

**r2-edh-b1 combined tallies: STRENGTHENED 0 · INTERPOLATION-ONLY 19 (ALL
19).** Two grade changes: **04** (STRENGTHENED→INTERPOLATION-ONLY) and
**13** (STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED→INTERPOLATION-ONLY).

**Not one single EDH conjecture reaches combined STRENGTHENED status.**
This is the sharpest possible confirmation of tranche 3's own headline
finding (EDH holds no comparandum of any kind) — adding a second, wholly
disjoint model family's worth of rivals did not rescue a single one, and
in fact pulled the two survivors of Family B's already-thin
STRENGTHENED/UNCHALLENGED column down to join the rest.

---

## PROGRAMME-WIDE COMBINED GRADE TABLE (all 43 survivors, both families)

**STRENGTHENED (5):** r3-b1-01, -08, -32, -35, -40.
**INTERPOLATION-ONLY (36):** r3-b1-03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -09, -16, -17,
-18, -19, -21, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27, -33 (17) + all 19 of r2-edh-b1.
**INTEGRITY-VERIFIED (1):** r3-b1-34.
**SUPERSEDED (1):** r3-b1-31.

**Seven grade changes total, all in the same direction (STRENGTHENED-class
→ INTERPOLATION-ONLY), all driven by Family A's rivals surfacing an
undischarged rival where Family B's own two rivals had both been
discharged (or, for -13, where Family B minted none at all):** r3-b1-06,
-17, -24, -26, -27; r2-edh-b1-04, -13.

**Compared to the programme-wide Family-B-only total (tranche-3's own
closing figure): STRENGTHENED 11 → 5, STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED 1 → 0,
INTERPOLATION-ONLY 29 → 36, INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1 → 1 (unaffected),
SUPERSEDED 1 → 1 (unaffected).** Adding a second, disjoint rival-minting
family more than halved the clean-STRENGTHENED column.

---

# ITEMS NEEDING AN ORCHESTRATOR RULING BEFORE COUNTERSIGNATURE

1. **r2-edh-b1-13 — the headline item.** Family B (Grok) explicitly declined
   to mint a rival for the Jireček-line conjecture, judging no
   comparable-plausibility alternative existed — exercising exactly the
   restraint the design doc's §1 asks for. Family A (GPT) minted two
   rivals for the same conjecture anyway, neither of which this pass could
   discharge (one architecturally NOT-COMPUTABLE, one genuinely
   computable but not completed this pass). Mechanically this pulls -13
   off STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED down to INTERPOLATION-ONLY. Recommend the
   orchestrator decide explicitly whether "unchallenged" should be judged
   per-family (in which case Grok's restraint stands on its own regardless
   of what GPT did) or in aggregate (the mechanical rule applied
   throughout this report) — this is the single highest-leverage
   methodological question this tranche raises, disjointness-measurement
   value aside. Recommend, independent of that ruling, completing
   r2-edh-b1-13-r2's equal-site-weighting test (cheap, findspot-based,
   fully specified above) before this conjecture's grade is treated as
   final either way.

2. **r3-b1-24-r1 — a rival whose account turned out TRUE, and has since
   been fixed.** No existing precedent (tranche 1–3) covers this shape:
   the rival's own mechanism was correct, and the live data shows the gap
   it identified has since been closed by a real engineering fix (the
   Devanagari vocabulary extension tranche 2 itself ordered). Filed
   RIVAL-LIVE (favors, resolved) rather than REFUTED, on the reasoning that
   "REFUTED" would misrepresent a rival that was right. Recommend the
   orchestrator either ratify this filing or propose a cleaner label for
   this specific shape (a rival that predicted, correctly, an already-
   fixed defect) for future tranches, since it will likely recur as the
   census programme keeps iterating its own instruments between rival-
   testing passes.

3. **The NAMAMI tradition-routing re-versioning itself (§ above) needs a
   standing note**, parallel to the korcis-day-2 and HP-dual-phenomenon
   flags already on record: any future citation of r3-b1-23/-24/-32's
   "training value" must specify WHICH snapshot (registration-time,
   tranche-2-time, or current) it means, since these three conjectures'
   numbers have now materially moved twice while their survival status has
   not moved at all.

4. **Five contested REFUTED-vs-DEFECTIVE calls this pass (up from tranche-
   2's three)**: r3-b1-01-r2, r3-b1-06-r1, plus the two distinctness
   contests (r3-b1-06-r2 vs. Grok's r1; r3-b1-18-r3 vs. Grok's r2) and the
   r3-b1-24-r1 labeling question above. None change any conjecture's grade
   under either reading, per Lane's Rule's own stated indifference — flagged
   per the brief's explicit demand that contestable calls be surfaced, not
   quietly resolved.

5. **"Computable, not executed this pass" — 8 rivals** (listed in the
   NOT-COMPUTABLE section's final paragraph) are genuine, cheap follow-ups
   using fields already confirmed to exist (`findspot*`, `responsible_
   individual`, date buckets). Recommend a short follow-up pass (well
   under this tranche's scope) to close these out before the r2-b2/r3-b2
   queue is finalized, rather than letting them sit indefinitely as LIVE
   by omission.

6. **Zero DEFECTIVE outcomes outside r3-b1-34's Amendment-#9 pair**,
   matching tranche 3's own pattern (0 in EDH) and roughly tranche 1's (0),
   contrasted with tranche 2's 2 (later re-litigated to a REFUTED-leaning
   Lane's Rule). Flagged per the brief's standing instruction not to
   default to leniency: on review, every rival this pass either proposed a
   genuinely well-formed, executable test (many of them decisive, several
   newly so) or a genuinely well-formed test we lack the data for — no
   rival this pass mischaracterized held architecture badly enough to be
   unformulable outright, with the two contested exceptions already listed
   in item 4.

7. **Seven grade flips is a large number to hand back in one tranche.**
   Recommend the orchestrator treat the flip list (r3-b1-06/17/24/26/27,
   r2-edh-b1-04/13) as this tranche's own equivalent of tranche-1's
   "zero-DEFECTIVE" sanity-check item: reviewed explicitly, not assumed
   correct because the mechanical rule produced it. Every flip in this
   report is driven by a specific, named, disclosed rival (never a bare
   "some rival somewhere stayed LIVE") — cross-reference against each
   conjecture's own section above before ratifying.

**DRAFT — awaiting orchestrator countersignature.**

---

## COUNTERSIGNATURE — orchestrator rulings, tranche 4 (2026-08-07)

**PROVISIONAL: this countersignature ratifies the method and the verdicts as far as
they go, but the programme-wide totals are NOT final until ruling 5's follow-up runs.**

1. **"Unchallenged" is AGGREGATE, never per-family. STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED is
   retired as a grade.** The entire purpose of a second disjoint family is that one
   family's failure to find a rival is not evidence that no rival exists. Judging
   "unchallenged" per-family would let a claim select the family that happened to be
   silent — precisely the cherry-picking the stage exists to prevent. r2-edh-b1-13
   (the Jireček-line flagship) therefore moves to INTERPOLATION-ONLY.
   **This is the most valuable single result of the rivals stage and belongs in the
   paper**: Grok declined to mint any rival, exercising the restraint the protocol
   explicitly rewards; GPT then minted two that we could not discharge. A single
   family's silence is empirically not evidence of absence. Any future claim of
   "no viable rival" requires silence from EVERY family run, and is provisional on
   the families actually run.
2. **New verdict class ratified: RIVAL-VINDICATED-AND-REMEDIED** (r3-b1-24-r1). The
   lane was right to refuse "REFUTED" for a rival that was correct. The rival
   identified a real defect (Bihar's curation gap was Devanagari spellings of
   already-recognised tokens); the defect was fixed between passes by a versioned
   instrument update; the rival is neither refuted nor live. It carries NO survival
   credit — a conjecture whose mechanism a rival correctly refined has not earned
   that mechanism — so INTERPOLATION-ONLY stands. Expect recurrence: the census
   programme iterates its own instruments between rival passes.
3. **Snapshot-citation note ADOPTED as standing.** r3-b1-23/-24/-32's training values
   have moved twice (registration → tranche 2 → post-re-versioning) while their
   survival status has not moved at all. Every future citation must name WHICH
   snapshot it means. Joins the korcis day-2 and HP dual-phenomenon flags.
4. **Five contested REFUTED-vs-DEFECTIVE calls: Lane's Rule RATIFIED** (a rival
   proposing a well-formed executable test is REFUTED when that test cuts against
   it, whatever it misstates in passing). No grade turns on the reading; recorded.
5. **ORDERED: the eight "computable but not executed" rivals must be run before any
   total is published.** Leaving a cheap, fully-specified, runnable test unexecuted
   inflates INTERPOLATION-ONLY by omission — which flatters nothing but is equally
   not a finding. Includes r2-edh-b1-13-r2's equal-site-weighting test, which must
   run before -13's grade is treated as settled either way.
6. **Zero DEFECTIVE outside the Amendment-#9 pair: acknowledged as reviewed**, not
   defaulted; consistent with tranches 1 and 3.
7. **Seven grade flips reviewed explicitly and RATIFIED as mechanically correct**
   (r3-b1-06/17/24/26/27, r2-edh-b1-04/13), each traced to a specific named
   undischarged rival. That a second family cut STRENGTHENED from 11 to 5 is the
   stage working, not misfiring: mechanism credit was being awarded on the evidence
   of one family's imagination.

**PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME-WIDE TOTALS (both families, 43 survivors):**
STRENGTHENED 5 · INTERPOLATION-ONLY 36 · INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1 · SUPERSEDED 1.
EDH: STRENGTHENED 0 of 19. Rivals across both families: 210 minted, 66 refuted on
held data, 5 defective, 1 vindicated-and-remediated, remainder live.
Final after ruling 5's follow-up.

Countersigned: Claude (orchestrator), under the operator's standing delegation.

---

# FOLLOW-UP: the eight ordered tests (2026-08-07)

**STATUS: DRAFT — awaiting orchestrator countersignature. Appended below the
countersignature block per instruction; nothing above this line was altered.**

Executed per countersignature ruling 5 ("the eight 'computable but not
executed' rivals must be run before any total is published... Includes
r2-edh-b1-13-r2's equal-site-weighting test, which must run before -13's
grade is treated as settled either way"). All tests below ran **read-only**
against the live census DB (`docker compose exec -T db psql -U inferopedia -d
inferopedia`), 2026-08-07. No writes; no git actions; no network access; no
file touched other than this one.

**Count note, disclosed up front rather than silently forced.** The
"Computable, not executed this pass" paragraph this follow-up was ordered
from (NOT-COMPUTABLE section, its final paragraph) names **six** distinct
rival ids, not eight: `r2-edh-b1-13-r2`, `r2-edh-b1-16-r3`, `r2-edh-b1-23-r2`,
`r2-edh-b1-23-r3`, `r2-edh-b1-24-r3`, `r2-edh-b1-25-r3`. Three other places in
this same draft cite three *different* counts for what should be the same
set: "8 rivals" (item 5, and countersignature ruling 5), "7 explicitly" (the
r2-edh-b1 Family-A-only tally), and a 5-member list omitting `-25-r3`
entirely (the Contestable Calls table row). None of the three matches the
paragraph's own enumeration. This is the same species of harmless internal
miscount the draft itself disclosed at the very top for 124-vs-126 total
rivals — flagged here on the same terms, not quietly resolved into whichever
number was convenient. All **six** rivals actually specified in the named
paragraph were executed in full below; none was left owing, and none was
invented to reach eight.

## PRIORITY — r2-edh-b1-13-r2: the Jireček-line equal-site-weighting test

**Conjecture recap (r2-edh-b1-13, as registered):** Latin-West holdout
provinces (21, named) show a non-Latin (Greek + Greek/Latin bilingual)
inscribed-language share under 5%; Greek-East holdout provinces (6, named)
show a share of 5% or more. Field: `raw->>'language'` (`'L'`=Latin, else
non-Latin, per the registered instrument's own literal denominator — full
`COUNT(*)`, not a filtered subset). Min support N≥30/province. Group-level
pass threshold: 80% of then-eligible provinces per group. Family B (Grok)
declined to mint any rival for this conjecture at all. Family A minted two;
r1 (region-by-language source-corpus selection) needs an independent
site-complete inventory and is genuinely NOT-COMPUTABLE — untouched by this
run, still LIVE. **r2 is the subject of this priority test.**

**r2's own mechanism, verbatim:** "The province-level shares may be produced
by unequal mixtures of inscription-producing contexts rather than a
province-wide linguistic boundary... Because every inscription receives
equal weight, a few heavily documented sites or genres can determine a
province's percentage."

**r2's own discriminating test, verbatim:** "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`)

**r2's own `what_result_favors_rival`, verbatim:** "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."

**Site proxy used (shared across four of the six tests below):**
`findspot_ancient` is populated on 68,394/81,855 EDH rows (83.6%);
`findspot_modern` on 80,089/81,855 (97.8%); the two together on 80,686/81,855
(98.6%). `site_id := COALESCE(NULLIF(findspot_ancient,''),
NULLIF(findspot_modern,''))` — ancient toponym preferred, modern findspot as
fallback — matches the operationalization the draft's own partial run
already started ("`findspot_ancient`/`findspot_modern` can serve as a
site-id proxy"). Rows with neither populated are excluded from the
site-weighted figure only, and disclosed per province in the `n_missing_site`
column below; they are never dropped from the row-weighted baseline.

**SQL run (equal-site-weighting, full 27-province named scope — 21 West + 6
East, the conjecture's own complete holdout list, superseding the draft's
"20 sample provinces" partial run):**
```sql
WITH scope(province, grp) AS (
  VALUES ('HiC','west'),('LaC','west'),('Lig','west'),('Lug','west'),('Lus','west'),
    ('MaC','west'),('MaT','west'),('Nar','west'),('Nor','west'),('Num','west'),
    ('PaI','west'),('PaS','west'),('Pic','west'),('Rae','west'),('Sar','west'),
    ('Sam','west'),('Tra','west'),('Tri','west'),('Umb','west'),('Val','west'),('VeH','west'),
    ('Iud','east'),('LyP','east'),('Mak','east'),('ReB','east'),('Syr','east'),('Mes','east')
),
recs AS (
  SELECT m.raw->'_scriptome_harvest'->>'province_code' AS province, s.grp,
         (m.raw->>'language' IS DISTINCT FROM 'L') AS non_latin,
         COALESCE(NULLIF(m.raw->>'findspot_ancient',''), NULLIF(m.raw->>'findspot_modern','')) AS site_id
  FROM scriptome_manuscriptrecord m JOIN scope s ON s.province = m.raw->'_scriptome_harvest'->>'province_code'
  WHERE m.source_id = (SELECT id FROM scriptome_cataloguesource WHERE slug='edh')
),
insc_weighted AS (SELECT province, grp, count(*) n, round(100.0*avg(non_latin::int),4) insc_pct FROM recs GROUP BY 1,2),
site_level AS (SELECT province, grp, site_id, avg(non_latin::int) share FROM recs WHERE site_id IS NOT NULL GROUP BY 1,2,3),
site_weighted AS (SELECT province, grp, count(*) n_sites, round(100.0*avg(share),4) site_pct FROM site_level GROUP BY 1,2)
SELECT iw.grp, iw.province, iw.n, iw.insc_pct, sw.n_sites, sw.site_pct
FROM insc_weighted iw LEFT JOIN site_weighted sw USING (province, grp)
WHERE iw.n >= 30 ORDER BY iw.grp, iw.insc_pct DESC;
```

**Result — inscription-weighted (baseline, reproduces the registered figures
exactly) vs. equal-site-weighted, all 24 provinces clearing N≥30 (the same
24 the registered instrument itself finds eligible — 19/21 West, 5/6 East;
Val/Tri/Mes remain below min-support, unchanged by this test):**

| Grp | Province | N (rows) | Insc-weighted % | N (sites) | Site-weighted % |
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| East | LyP | 61 | 29.5082 | 30 | **35.5812** |
| East | Mak | 1,321 | 24.6026 | 204 | **30.3028** |
| East | Iud | 187 | 10.6952 | 46 | **14.6004** |
| East | Syr | 406 | 7.1429 | 110 | 6.6581 |
| East | ReB | 78 | 1.2821 | 11 | 0.2841 |
| West | Tra | 165 | 3.0303 | 59 | 0.5448 |
| West | PaS | 4,259 | 2.6767 | 214 | 2.8454 |
| West | PaI | 3,134 | 2.0421 | 145 | 1.3733 |
| West | LaC | 2,598 | 0.8853 | 245 | 1.2998 |
| West | Lig | 145 | 0.6897 | 37 | 0.6757 |
| West | Lug | 596 | 0.5034 | 141 | 0.4463 |
| West | VeH | 1,155 | 0.4329 | 172 | 0.1935 |
| West | MaT | 291 | 0.3436 | 27 | 0.0250 |
| West | Nor | 2,771 | 0.2887 | 154 | 0.0784 |
| West | Nar | 1,403 | 0.2851 | 365 | 0.0256 |
| West | HiC | 4,685 | 0.2348 | 1,085 | 0.2466 |
| West | Sam | 649 | 0.1541 | 128 | 0.0289 |
| West | Rae | 1,012 | 0.0988 | 187 | 0.0035 |
| West | MaC | 1,124 | 0.0890 | 190 | 0.0035 |
| West | Lus | 1,583 | 0.0632 | 458 | 0.0012 |
| West | Num | 2,644 | 0.0378 | 234 | 0.0611 |
| West | Pic | 171 | 0.0000 | 50 | 0.0000 |
| West | Sar | 228 | 0.0000 | 61 | 0.0000 |
| West | Umb | 348 | 0.0000 | 90 | 0.0000 |

**Zero of 24 eligible provinces cross the 5% threshold under equal-site-
weighting.** West stays 19/19 (100%) under 5% both ways (max moves from Tra
3.03% insc-weighted to PaS 2.8454% site-weighted — still nowhere near 5%).
East stays 4/5 (80%) at-or-above 5% both ways — the same four (LyP, Mak,
Iud, Syr) pass and the same one (ReB) fails under both weightings, exactly
reproducing the training-side pattern where one Greek-East "complication"
(Arabia, ~9.0%) was already priced into the 80%-not-100% group threshold. If
anything, separation **sharpens** at the top under site-weighting: LyP rises
29.51%→35.58%, Mak rises 24.60%→30.30%, while the West ceiling **falls**
(Tra's 3.03% insc-weighted high stops being the ceiling; PaS's 2.85%
site-weighted is lower still).

**Supplementary check — the compositional-standardization half of r2's own
test description** (genre = `type_of_inscription`, restricted to the single
largest, most-comparable category, `epitaph`, present in adequate volume on
both sides):

| Grp | Province | N (epitaphs) | Non-Latin % (epitaph-only) |
|---|---|---:|---:|
| East | Mak | 629 | 27.3450 |
| East | Syr | 47 | 8.5106 |
| West | Tra | 73 | 4.1096 |
| West | LaC | 406 | 1.9704 |
| West | PaI | 1,088 | 1.4706 |
| West | PaS | 1,416 | 0.9887 |
| West | Sam, Nar, MaC, HiC, VeH, Lig, Lug, Lus, Nor, Num, Pic, Rae, Umb | 87–1,620 each | 0.0000–0.7576 |

Within-genre, the separation holds exactly as cleanly: West max (Tra,
4.11%) stays under 5%; both East provinces with N≥30 epitaphs (Mak, Syr)
stay comfortably over 5%. (LyP, Iud, ReB drop below N=30 at this grain and
are not claimed either way.)

**Verdict, per r2's own stated criterion:** neither disjunct fires — equal
site weighting does not "cause substantial overlap between the groups,"
does not "move many provinces across 5%" (it moves zero), and the genre-
standardized check corroborates rather than weakens the separation. The
unadjusted inscription-weighted result remains separated, exactly as the
criterion's own final clause anticipates for a refutation.

**VERDICT: RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA.**

**What this means for r2-edh-b1-13's grade.** r1 (region-by-language
source-corpus selection) is untouched by this run — it remains genuinely
NOT-COMPUTABLE on held data (needs an independent site-complete epigraphic
inventory neither family can supply) — so it stays RIVAL-LIVE regardless of
r2's outcome. Per the combined rule (INTERPOLATION-ONLY iff any rival from
either family is LIVE), **r2-edh-b1-13 stays at INTERPOLATION-ONLY** —
unchanged from the countersignature's own ruling 1 reclassification. What
changes is the *reason*: the grade no longer rests in any part on an
unexecuted debt. Countersignature ruling 5's explicit condition on this
conjecture — "must run before -13's grade is treated as settled either
way" — is satisfied by the result above. -13's grade can now be treated as
settled, at INTERPOLATION-ONLY, resting on two independently-adjudicated
rivals (one genuinely NOT-COMPUTABLE, one now decisively REFUTED) rather
than one adjudicated and one owed.

---

## THE OTHER FIVE

Same read-only session, same site-proxy method where findspot-based.

### r2-edh-b1-16-r3 — site/batch pseudoreplication in the epigraphic-habit-peak window

**Conjecture:** ≥90% of a province's dated rows fall within a 6-century
window `[peak_bucket-2, peak_bucket+3]` centred on that province's own peak
century, in every eligible holdout province (N(dated, date_end<1000)≥150).
r1 (external) and r2 (interval-censored sensitivity, **already executed**:
"Transpadana 82.47%, Thracia 85.95% both flip below 90%") are unaffected by
this run.

**r3's own mechanism, verbatim:** "A province's EDH rows may be dominated by
a few intensively excavated sites, monument groups, or publication batches
whose own occupation or deposition phases are short... both halves will
satisfy the registered province-level threshold without a province-wide
production era."

**r3's own discriminating test, verbatim:** "Group held-out rows by findspot
or site and, where available, source collection or publication. Recompute
each province's curve after equal-weighting sites, capping each site's
contribution, and sequentially removing the largest sites or source
batches; also measure whether independent sites within a province have
concordant peak centuries."

**r3's own `what_result_favors_rival`, verbatim:** "The provincial threshold
fails or the peak shifts substantially after dominant sites or batches are
down-weighted, while site-level peaks are mutually discordant. A
province-wide production-era mechanism predicts substantially greater
stability and cross-site peak concordance."

**SQL run** (province peak/window reproduced exactly per the frozen
instrument; then (a) equal-site-weighted window share, (b) largest-single-
site excluded, row-weighted, (c) site-level peak concordance for sites with
≥10 dated rows):
```sql
WITH buckets AS (
  SELECT province, CASE WHEN date_start>=0 THEN date_start/100 ELSE (date_start-99)/100 END bucket,
         COALESCE(NULLIF(findspot_ancient,''), NULLIF(findspot_modern,'')) site_id
  FROM ... WHERE date_start IS NOT NULL AND date_end<1000
),
-- peak_bucket per province as registered; then per-site in-window share, averaged with equal
-- weight per site; separately, row-weighted total with the single largest site's rows removed;
-- separately, each site's own peak bucket (>=10 rows) checked against the province's peak.
```
(Full script: `site_level`/`site_weighted` CTEs mirror the priority test above;
`largest_site`/`excl_largest` drop the single biggest site by row count;
`site_peaks`/`concordance` rank each site's own bucket histogram and compare
its mode to the province's mode.)

**Result, all 18 eligible provinces (N≥150), sorted by baseline:**

| Province | N dated | Baseline (row-wt) % | Site-weighted % | Top site (N) excluded | Excl.-largest % | Site-peak concordance |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|---:|---:|
| Nar | 297 | 92.5926 | **89.9133** | Nemausus (25) | 91.9118 | 66.67% (4/6) |
| Tra | 154 | 93.5065 | 97.3342 | Mediolanum (40) | 96.4912 | 100.00% (3/3) |
| Thr | 370 | 94.5946 | 97.7486 | Philippopolis (49) | 93.7695 | **22.22% (2/9)** |
| Lus | 507 | 96.4497 | 97.2989 | Emerita Augusta (92) | 96.8675 | 83.33% (5/6) |
| Umb | 151 | 97.3510 | 95.3191 | Hispellum (22) | 96.8992 | 80.00% (4/5) |
| Mak | 1,088 | 97.4265 | 97.3907 | Philippi (185) | 97.0100 | 64.71% (11/17) |
| VeH | 545 | 97.4312 | 96.5138 | Altinum (105) | 96.8182 | 70.00% (7/10) |
| HiC | 2,667 | 98.2377 | 99.0614 | Barcino (247) | 98.2645 | 60.00% (24/40) |
| LaC | 820 | 98.2927 | 96.6836 | Ostia (163) | 97.8691 | 62.50% (10/16) |
| Sam | 247 | 99.1903 | 98.5232 | Corfinium (37) | 99.0476 | 60.00% (3/5) |
| MaC | 262 | 99.2366 | 99.5098 | Caesarea (94) | 98.8095 | 83.33% (5/6) |
| MoI | 1,888 | 99.4703 | 99.8984 | Novae (234) | 99.4559 | 86.49% (32/37) |
| Rae | 977 | 99.4882 | 99.2896 | Aug. Vindelicorum (151) | 99.3947 | 57.14% (12/21) |
| Nor | 2,760 | 99.6739 | 99.1946 | Virunum (665) | 99.5704 | **45.45% (15/33)** |
| MoS | 1,340 | 99.7015 | 98.1481 | Scupi (166) | 99.6593 | 87.50% (21/24) |
| Num | 1,599 | 99.9375 | 98.3051 | Celtianis (1,274) | 99.6923 | 100.00% (8/8) |
| PaS | 4,183 | 99.9522 | 99.9601 | Carnuntum (1,348) | 99.9295 | 55.32% (26/47) |
| PaI | 3,109 | 99.9678 | 99.9975 | Aquincum (1,421) | 99.9408 | 82.14% (23/28) |

**Reading against r3's own criterion:** exactly **1 of 18** provinces
(Narbonensis) crosses below the 90% floor under equal-site-weighting
(89.9133%, a 0.09-point miss) — a genuine instance of "the provincial
threshold fails... after dominant sites... are down-weighted." But it
**recovers** to 91.9118% under the closely-related largest-site-exclusion
operationalization, and zero provinces fail under that variant. Site-level
peak concordance is genuinely uneven — from 22.22% (Thracia) to 100%
(Transpadana, Numidia), with roughly half the provinces below two-thirds —
real, disclosed support for "mutually discordant." But the headline
province-level claim survives intact, under every operationalization tried,
in 17–18 of 18 provinces.

**VERDICT: RIVAL-LIVE-FAVOURED** (narrow, non-decisive — genuine partial
support on both named sub-tests, but the core compactness claim is not
dislodged).

---

### r2-edh-b1-23-r2 — funerary-denominator / equal-site-weighting on the Cisalpine stele tradition

**Conjecture:** Transpadana shows an elevated stele share of
`type_of_monument`-typed rows (≥20%), matching training-side Aemilia's
exceptional stele share. Current holdout state (confirmed live, both now
past min-support N≥100): **Aemilia 85/194 = 43.81%; Transpadana 31/145 =
21.38%** — the conjecture currently survives (21.38% is not under 20%).
`type_of_inscription` vocabulary for these two provinces: dominated by
`epitaph` (212 rows) — the funerary category r2 asks for.

**r2's own mechanism, verbatim:** "The EDH samples for Aemilia and
Transpadana are disproportionately drawn from necropoleis or funerary-
focused corpora, where stelae are intrinsically common, rather than
representing each province's overall monument repertoire."

**r2's own discriminating test, verbatim:** "Identify inscription function
and findspot or excavation corpus, then compare stele choice only among
funerary monuments while weighting sites equally and repeating the
calculation after removing each large cemetery corpus."

**r2's own `what_result_favors_rival`, verbatim:** "The Aemilia and
Transpadana excess disappears or becomes strongly dependent on one or two
cemetery corpora after function standardization and equal site weighting; a
province-wide tradition predicts a persistent excess across multiple
independent funerary sites."

**SQL run:**
```sql
WITH recs AS (
  SELECT province, (type_of_monument='stele') is_stele,
         COALESCE(NULLIF(findspot_ancient,''), NULLIF(findspot_modern,'')) site_id
  FROM edh_records WHERE province IN ('Tra','Aem')
    AND type_of_monument IS NOT NULL AND type_of_inscription = 'epitaph'
)
-- (1) funerary-only row-weighted share; (2) equal-site-weighted (per-site share, averaged);
-- (3) largest single site/corpus excluded, row-weighted.
```

**Result:**

| Province | N funerary-typed | N stele | Funerary-only % | N sites | Site-weighted % | Top site (N) | N excl. largest | % excl. largest |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---:|---:|
| Aem | 131 | 84 | **64.1221** | 43 | 54.3724 | Bononia (25) | 106 | 58.4906 |
| Tra | 63 | 27 | **42.8571** | 22 | 52.9113 | Mediolanum (20) | 43 | 53.4884 |

**Reading against r2's own criterion:** restricting to funerary-only
inscriptions does not shrink the excess — it **enlarges** it (Aemilia
43.81%→64.12%; Transpadana 21.38%→42.86%; both move the *wrong* direction
for the rival). Equal-site-weighting brings both down somewhat (Aem 64.12→
54.37; Tra 42.86→52.91, i.e. barely moves for Tra) but both stay
dramatically above the 20% floor. Excluding each province's single largest
funerary corpus (Bononia, 19% of Aemilia's funerary rows; Mediolanum, 32% of
Transpadana's) barely moves either figure (Aem→58.49%; Tra actually
*rises* to 53.49%) — the excess is neither disappearing nor concentrating
in one or two corpora; it is distributed and persistent, exactly what "a
province-wide tradition predicts."

**VERDICT: RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA.**

---

### r2-edh-b1-23-r3 — chronological standardization on the Cisalpine stele tradition

**r3's own mechanism, verbatim:** "Aemilia and Transpadana have similar
chronological mixtures in the catalogue, with disproportionate
representation of periods when stelae were widely more common, so their
agreement reflects time-period composition rather than a specifically
Cisalpine tradition."

**r3's own discriminating test, verbatim:** "Bin dated monument-typed
records by century or narrower archaeological period, estimate stele shares
within each period, and directly standardize every province to a common
period distribution."

**r3's own `what_result_favors_rival`, verbatim:** "The two provincial
shares fall toward ordinary levels after chronological standardization and
show no consistent within-period provincial excess; the regional-tradition
mechanism predicts that Aemilia and Transpadana remain elevated relative to
contemporaneous provinces."

**SQL run:** century-bucket (`date_start`-based, same bucket convention as
r2-edh-b1-16/-24) stele share for Aemilia and Transpadana, plus the
corpus-wide (all EDH provinces, `Inc` excluded) same-bucket rate as the
"ordinary" comparandum and as direct-standardization weights.

**Corpus-wide overall stele rate (all dated, typed-monument EDH rows, all
provinces): 15.8941% (n=49,792)** — this is "ordinary."

| Province | Bucket | N | Province stele % | Corpus stele % (same bucket) | Renorm. weight |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Aem | 0 (1–100 CE) | 78 | **61.54** | 17.78 | 30.16% |
| Aem | 1 (101–200) | 49 | **51.02** | 19.26 | 45.23% |
| Aem | -1 (1–100 BCE) | 28 | 32.14 | 13.97 | 3.42% |
| Aem | 2, 3, 5 (small n) | 22 | 11–17 | 2–10 | 20.5% combined |
| Tra | 0 (1–100 CE) | 79 | **29.11** | 17.78 | 29.83% |
| Tra | 1 (101–200) | 16 | 18.75 | 19.26 | 44.73% |
| Tra | 2 (201–300) | 9 | 33.33 | 10.00 | 13.62% |
| Tra | 3 (301–400) | 19 | 0.00 | 2.49 | 5.75% |

Aemilia's two dominant buckets (78+49=127/183=69% of its dated typed-
monument rows) both show **large** excess over the same-period corpus rate
(61.54 vs 17.78; 51.02 vs 19.26) — a strong, consistent within-period
excess. Transpadana is thinner and more mixed: its dominant bucket (79/139=
57%) shows real excess (29.11 vs 17.78), but its second bucket (16/139,
11.5%) shows **no** excess (18.75 vs 19.26 — essentially identical to
corpus), and its third bucket (19/139, 13.7%, real sample size) shows
Transpadana **below** the corpus rate (0.00 vs 2.49). Disclosed honestly:
Transpadana's within-period support for "remains elevated" is real but not
as uniform as Aemilia's.

**Direct-standardized rate** (province's own period-specific rates,
reweighted to the corpus-wide period distribution): **Aemilia ≈45.5%**
(vs. raw dated-subset rate ≈46.4% — moves −0.9pp); **Transpadana ≈22.2%**
(vs. raw dated-subset rate ≈21.6% — moves +0.6pp). Standardization leaves
both provinces' rates essentially where they started — neither "falls
toward" the 15.89% corpus-ordinary level in any material way. Aemilia stays
~30 points above ordinary; Transpadana stays modestly but persistently
above both the corpus rate and the conjecture's own 20% floor.

**Reading against r3's own criterion:** shares do not fall toward ordinary
levels after standardization (barely move at all, for either province), and
Aemilia shows strong consistent within-period excess. Transpadana's
within-period picture is genuinely thinner — disclosed rather than
smoothed over — but the standardized aggregate the rival's own criterion
asks about does not support "falls toward ordinary" for either province.

**VERDICT: RIVAL-REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA** (with the Transpadana within-period
thinness disclosed as a genuine, non-dispositive caveat).

---

### r2-edh-b1-24-r3 — shared-dating-decision clustering on the date-range-width band

**Conjecture:** average `date_end-date_start` (range-precision rows only)
stays within [20, 250] years in every eligible holdout province (N(range)
≥30). r1 and r2 (**already executed**, both LIVE-favors) are unaffected.

**r3's own mechanism, verbatim:** "Province means may be stabilized by
pseudoreplication and composition: large publication corpora, sites, or
monument classes contribute many inscriptions carrying the same copied or
jointly assigned date range."

**r3's own discriminating test, verbatim:** "Group records by cited
publication corpus, findspot or archaeological assemblage, object class, and
identical date interval. Recompute each provincial mean after collapsing
likely shared dating decisions to one observation and, separately, after
giving equal weight to corpora or sites rather than inscriptions."

**r3's own `what_result_favors_rival`, verbatim:** "The rival is favored if
a few clusters account for most eligible rows and cluster-balanced means
change substantially or leave the 20-to-250-year band, while the original
inscription-weighted means remain inside it."

**SQL run:** (site_id, date_start, date_end) triples collapsed to one
observation per cluster (dedup of rows sharing both site and exact interval
— the literal "shared dating decision" signature); separately, per-site
mean width averaged with equal weight per site.

**Result, all 24 eligible provinces (N≥30 range rows), extremes and
notable clusters shown (full 24-row set run; all fall inside the band under
every method):**

| Province | N range | Baseline avg width | N clusters | Max cluster size | Cluster-collapsed avg width | N sites | Site-weighted avg width |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Num | 1,485 | 85.8397 | 155 | **1,051 (70.8% of rows)** | **38.3097** | 48 | 50.1268 |
| Rom | 2,305 | 71.1957 | 617 | 157 | 44.2934 | 12 | 72.1478 |
| PaS | 3,986 | 136.3768 | 1,437 | 320 | 94.1949 | 204 | 116.8753 |
| Mak | 1,022 | 152.9599 | 512 | 98 | 110.5840 | 161 | 128.7628 |
| PaI | 2,864 | 100.0482 | 879 | 145 | 78.7201 | 126 | 97.2257 |
| *(19 other provinces)* | 63–2,624 | 73.7–141.1 | — | 4–45 | 57.6–118.6 | 21–549 | 57.3–140.7 |

The lowest baseline (Rom, 71.20) and highest (Mak, 152.96) both sit far
inside [20, 250], as does every value produced by either reweighting: the
cluster-collapsed range across all 24 provinces is **38.31 (Num) to 118.62
(Rae)**; the site-weighted range is **50.13 (Num) to 140.74 (Rae)**. Neither
scheme comes close to the 20-year floor or the 250-year ceiling anywhere.

**But the first half of r3's criterion is genuinely, substantially true for
several provinces**, most dramatically **Numidia**: a single (site, exact-
interval) cluster accounts for **1,051 of Num's 1,485 range rows (70.8%)** —
a real, disclosed instance of "a few clusters account for most eligible
rows." Collapsing it drops Num's mean from 85.84 to 38.31, a **55% relative
reduction** — a "substantial" change by any reasonable reading, satisfying
that disjunct even though the *result* stays inside the band. The effect
recurs, more moderately, elsewhere: Roma −37.8% (71.20→44.29), Pannonia
superior −30.9% (136.38→94.19), Macedonia −27.7% (152.96→110.58), Pannonia
inferior −21.3% (100.05→78.72).

**VERDICT: RIVAL-LIVE-FAVOURED** (real, substantial, disclosed support for
the clustering mechanism itself — the rival's own "changes substantially"
clause is satisfied, concentrated most dramatically in Numidia — but the
[20,250] band is never threatened under any reweighting, anywhere, so the
base conjecture's survival is untouched).

---

### r2-edh-b1-25-r3 — present-repository cross-classification on photographic-documentation heterogeneity

**Conjecture:** at least one eligible holdout province has >40% `work_status
= 'no image'` rows AND at least one has <3% (N≥100/province). Current
extremes, reconfirmed live: **high = Numidia, 51.25% (n=2,644); several low
extremes <3%, e.g. Lusitania and Sardinia both 0.00%.** r1 (LIVE, genuinely
not-computable — no image-asset verification held) and r2 (**already
executed**, REFUTED via `present_location`-population-as-accessibility-
proxy) are unaffected by this run.

**r3's own mechanism, verbatim:** "Modern holding institutions may differ in
image-release, copyright, access, or digitization policies, with ancient
province acting only as a proxy because objects from a province are often
concentrated in particular museums or repositories."

**r3's own discriminating test, verbatim:** "Group records by present
holding institution and fit a cross-classified model containing both
repository and ancient-province effects. For repositories holding
inscriptions from multiple provinces, compare no-image rates across those
provinces; also compare a province's records across multiple repositories."

**r3's own `what_result_favors_rival`, verbatim:** "The rival is favored if
repository effects dominate, rates are similar across provinces within the
same repository, and province effects or threshold-crossing extremes
largely vanish after adjustment for present custodian."

**Missing datum for the decisive case, stated plainly rather than forced.**
`present_location` (the only repository-identity field held) is populated
on 42,235/81,855 EDH rows corpus-wide (51.6%) — but on just **150/2,644
(5.67%) of Numidia's rows**, the actual >40% extreme that anchors the
conjecture's high side. None of that sparse 5.67% falls into a
multi-province repository group with adequate volume (see table below).
This is the same "likely underpowered" flag the draft already carried for
this rival, now confirmed at full-corpus scale rather than left as a risk
on a 3-province sample: **the decisive province genuinely cannot be tested
this way.**

**SQL run** (repositories — `present_location` values — appearing in ≥2
provinces with ≥15 rows/province each):
```sql
SELECT present_location, province, count(*) n,
       round(100.0*avg((work_status='no image')::int),2) noimage_pct
FROM edh_records WHERE present_location IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY 1,2 HAVING count(*)>=15;
-- then group by repository, keep those spanning >=2 provinces
```

**Result:**

| Repository | N provinces | N total | Min no-image % | Max no-image % | Spread |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| "verschollen" (= *lost*, a status marker, not an institution) | 11 | 2,164 | 10.00 | 93.75 | **83.75pp** |
| "verschollen?" | 3 | 84 | 44.83 | 93.55 | 48.72pp |
| Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múz. | 2 | 773 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.08pp |
| Zagreb, Arh. Muz. | 2 | 302 | 2.17 | 5.49 | 3.32pp |
| Sofija, Nac. Arh. Muz. | 2 | 264 | 10.38 | 11.54 | 1.16pp |
| Wien, Kunsthist. Mus. | 2 | 146 | 0.94 | 5.00 | 4.06pp |
| Graz, Landesmus. Joanneum | 2 | 120 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00pp |
| Ljubljana, Nar. Muz. Slov. | 2 | 72 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00pp |

**"Verschollen"/"verschollen?" are excluded from the repository reading** —
they mean *lost/missing*, i.e. an object-survival status wearing the
`present_location` field, not a real custodian; grouping by them would
silently smuggle r2's already-refuted survival-status mechanism into a test
that's supposed to be about repository identity. (Disclosed separately: the
83.75pp spread among "lost" objects is a striking data point, but it belongs
to r2's territory, already tested and REFUTED via a cleaner proxy — not
double-counted here for r3.)

Among the **six genuine** multi-province repositories: within-repository,
province-to-province spread is small (0.00–4.06pp) in five of six, and
modest (3.32pp) in the sixth — real, if narrow, support for "rates are
similar across provinces within the same repository." But all six sit in
the corpus's mid-range (0–11.5% no-image), nowhere near either of the
conjecture's actual extremes (51.25% high / 0.00% low) — the specific
threshold-crossing cases the rival's own criterion needs to see "vanish"
are not reachable by this proxy at all.

**Reading against r3's own criterion:** genuinely split. Where the test
CAN run (mid-range provinces, adequate `present_location` volume),
repository effects do appear to dominate over province effects — real
support. Where it matters most (Numidia, the actual >40% extreme), the
proxy is too sparse to test at all, and no substitute route exists in held
data.

**VERDICT: RIVAL-LIVE-INCONCLUSIVE** (decisive case unreachable — missing
datum: `present_location` populated on only 5.67% of Numidia's rows, none
of it overlapping an adequately-sized multi-province repository group;
modest, non-dispositive support elsewhere in the corpus's mid-range).

---

## Grade-change determination, all six touched conjectures

| Conjecture | Rival(s) touched this pass | New verdict(s) | Still-LIVE sibling rival(s) (untouched) | Combined grade | Changed from tranche-4 draft? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r2-edh-b1-13 | r2 | REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA | r1 (genuinely NOT-COMPUTABLE) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | No — but now *settled*, not owed (ruling 5's condition satisfied) |
| r2-edh-b1-16 | r3 | LIVE-FAVOURED (narrow) | r1 (external); r2 already LIVE-favors,decisive | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (UNINFORMATIVE band via r2) | No |
| r2-edh-b1-23 | r2, r3 | both REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA | r1 (already LIVE, mixed) | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | No — but 2 of 3 rivals now cleanly discharged rather than pending |
| r2-edh-b1-24 | r3 | LIVE-FAVOURED | r1, r2 already LIVE-favors | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** (UNINFORMATIVE band, unchanged) | No |
| r2-edh-b1-25 | r3 | LIVE-INCONCLUSIVE | r1 (genuinely NOT-COMPUTABLE); r2 already REFUTED | **INTERPOLATION-ONLY** | No |

**No conjecture's grade changes.** In every one of the five non-priority
cases, at least one *other*, untouched rival was already independently
sufficient to hold the conjecture at INTERPOLATION-ONLY (either a genuinely
NOT-COMPUTABLE sibling needing external data, or an already-executed
LIVE-favors sibling gating an UNINFORMATIVE-band conjecture) — so resolving
the "computable, not executed" debt could not have moved any of these five
regardless of how it came out. r2-edh-b1-13 is the one case where the
now-resolved rival mattered for *settling* the grade (per countersignature
ruling 5's explicit singling-out of it) rather than for *moving* it: r1's
persistence as a genuine NOT-COMPUTABLE rival was already sufficient to hold
-13 at INTERPOLATION-ONLY the moment ruling 1 retired
STRENGTHENED-UNCHALLENGED — r2's execution closes the specific debt ruling 5
named, without changing the letter grade.

## Updated programme-wide totals

**Unchanged from the tranche-4 provisional table:**
**STRENGTHENED 5 · INTERPOLATION-ONLY 36 · INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1 · SUPERSEDED
1, across all 43 survivors.** (r3-b1: STRENGTHENED 5, INTERPOLATION-ONLY 17,
INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1, SUPERSEDED 1. r2-edh-b1: STRENGTHENED 0,
INTERPOLATION-ONLY 19 — all 19.)

Countersignature ruling 5's stated condition — "the eight [sic; six]
'computable but not executed' rivals must be run before any total is
published" — is now satisfied in full. **The "PROVISIONAL" qualifier on the
programme-wide totals can be retired**, subject to the orchestrator's own
sign-off on this section: running all six did not surface a single grade
flip, in either direction, beyond the seven already ratified in the
countersignature above (r3-b1-06/17/24/26/27, r2-edh-b1-04/13).

**Family-A-only rival tallies, updated** (r2-edh-b1 batch specifically —
the only batch this pass touched): was 9 REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA / 0 DEFECTIVE
/ 47 LIVE; **now 12 REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA / 0 DEFECTIVE / 44 LIVE** (+3
refuted: `13-r2`, `23-r2`, `23-r3`; the other three — `16-r3`, `24-r3`,
`25-r3` — remain LIVE, now with disclosed, executed content instead of an
open debt). Programme-wide Family A (124 rivals): was 35
REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA / 2 DEFECTIVE / 87 LIVE; **now 38 REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA
/ 2 DEFECTIVE / 84 LIVE.** (Combined-both-families totals in the
countersignature's closing line would shift by the same +3 refuted / −3
live if recomputed on this same basis; Family B's own tranche 1–3 tallies
were not re-touched by this pass and are not re-asserted here.)

**DRAFT — awaiting orchestrator countersignature.**

## COUNTERSIGNATURE — the ordered follow-up (2026-08-07)

All six named tests executed (the lane correctly reported that the source cites the
category's size inconsistently in three places — 8, 7, and a 5-member list — and ran
every rival actually named rather than forcing a count; the discrepancy is a drafting
defect in tranche 4, recorded, not a missing test).

**Ruling 5 is discharged.** r2-edh-b1-13's equal-site-weighting test ran: zero of 24
eligible provinces cross the 5% threshold under site-weighting, so that rival is
REFUTED-ON-HELD-DATA. The flagship's grade does not change — its sibling rival needs
an independent site-complete inventory we do not hold — but it now rests on a settled
record rather than an owed test, which was the condition.

**THE PROVISIONAL QUALIFIER IS RETIRED. FINAL PROGRAMME-WIDE GRADES (43 survivors,
both families): STRENGTHENED 5 · INTERPOLATION-ONLY 36 · INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1 ·
SUPERSEDED 1.** Census: 5 / 17 / 1 / 1. Heidelberg: 0 / 19. Rivals: 208 minted across
two families plus one formal no-viable declaration; 69 refuted on held data.

Countersigned: Claude (orchestrator), under the operator's standing delegation.

---

# ERRATUM — 9 August 2026 (appended below countersignature; nothing above altered)

The dischargeability inventory of 9 August
(`docs/generated/quincunx_rival_dischargeability_20260809.md`, §E.2), cross-checking
every rival archive's frontmatter against this document's prose, found that for a
majority of r2-edh-b1 conjectures this tranche substantively adjudicated only two of the
Codex family's three archived rivals, and in some instances discussed an already-refuted
Grok mechanism under a Codex rival's heading. Per the protocol's own default, every
archived rival not substantively adjudicated here remains **LIVE**. The inventory's
roster carries the corrected per-rival ledger; its accounting is longer than this
document's tallies imply. **No conjecture's letter grade changes** — in every affected
case at least one other rival independently held the conjecture at INTERPOLATION-ONLY —
but the per-rival bookkeeping in this document should not be cited without the roster
beside it. Recorded as found, not silently repaired.

Countersigned: Claude (orchestrator), under the operator's standing delegation.


---

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

The "PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME-WIDE TOTALS" block above says "210 minted" and is marked provisional in the record itself ("Final after ruling 5's follow-up"). The final deposited archive contains 208 rivals (124 Family A + 84 Family B); the final Grade tallies are those of the closing table: STRENGTHENED 5, INTERPOLATION-ONLY 36, INTEGRITY-VERIFIED 1, SUPERSEDED 1, with EDH (Heidelberg) STRENGTHENED 0 of 19.
