---
conjecture: r3-b1-33
family: grok
model: "Grok 4.5 expert (chat paste-back via orchestrator window)"
received: 2026-08-06
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 2
note: "le/ge symbols transcribed as unicode escapes (paste fidelity). PROVENANCE (operator 2026-08-06): the first paste of this block into Grok was truncated; this archived reply is from the SECOND, complete presentation of the block."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "The elevated non-Latin institution-name share in Hindi-belt states is driven primarily by the script preferences of the data-entry or cataloguing centres (including out-of-state centres) that performed the bulk of the original record entry for those states, rather than by the administrative-language convention under which the holding institutions themselves operate.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the script of the name string reflects the practice of the teams that entered the data, the clean belt-versus-non-belt separation (45%+ versus \u226414%) arises because belt-state holdings were disproportionately entered by centres that work in non-Latin scripts; the disclosed out-of-state centre already accounts for part of one belt state's high figure, the counter-example Devanagari-official-language state with near-zero non-Latin names is explained by its entry teams having used Latin, and the holdout results (including the 86% confirmation in the administratively carved state and the Latin-name treatment of non-Latin holdings) follow the same entry-team pattern.",
"named_confounds": ["cataloguing or data-entry practice by entry centre", "selection effects in which centres performed the work", "out-of-state cataloguing-centre contribution"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Group records by any available entry-centre, contributor, or project identifiers; compute the non-Latin name share within each centre across both belt and non-belt states. Measure whether centres that work predominantly in non-Latin scripts produce high non-Latin shares regardless of the holding institution's location or administrative language, and whether the belt/non-belt contrast collapses once entry-centre is controlled for.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If non-Latin name shares track the entry centre far more strongly than the holding institution's state or administrative language, this favors the rival (entry-centre practice); if the belt/non-belt contrast persists inside individual centres, this favors the proposed holding-institution administrative-language convention."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "The portal's own storage or display layer applies differential transliteration or script-retention rules that preserve non-Latin characters for institution names associated with Hindi-belt states while converting names from non-belt states to Latin by default, independent of either the holding institution's or the entry centre's practices.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A region-sensitive portal rule would produce the observed clean separation (belt minimum 45% versus non-belt maximum 14%), accommodate the disclosed non-Latin contribution from an out-of-state centre (still stored as non-Latin), explain the counter-example state, and generate the holdout pattern (high share in the carved belt-derived state, low shares elsewhere, and Latin names even for non-Latin holdings) without any reference to institutional administrative-language conventions.",
"named_confounds": ["portal software configuration or transliteration policy", "administrative geographic classification artifact", "harvest or storage-layer script handling"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Compare the institution-name strings as returned by the portal's list or state-facet interfaces against any bulk export, API, or detail-page views that claim to expose the original entered form; also compare against independent official directories of the same institutions. Measure the rate of non-Latin retention versus forced Latinization by state belt.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If independent directories and original-entry views show substantially lower non-Latin rates in belt states than the portal displays, while the portal itself applies belt-dependent retention, this favors the rival (portal-layer rule); if the non-Latin shares match across portal, original entry, and independent sources, this favors the proposed institutional administrative-language mechanism."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
