---
conjecture: r3-b1-18
family: codex
model: "gpt-5.6-sol (codex-cli 0.144.0-alpha.4, ChatGPT-subscription auth)"
model_stamp_corrected: "2026-08-07 — archives were first written stamped gpt-5.5 by a runner bug (the stamper read config.toml's default instead of the -m flag actually passed). The calls themselves ran on gpt-5.6-sol throughout; only the label was wrong. Corrected in place, noted here rather than silently."
received: 2026-08-07
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 3
validation: VALID
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "Portal coverage may be contributor-driven: the union-territory records could come predominantly or entirely from one participating institution or digitization campaign, while manuscripts held by other local institutions were never ingested. A complete portal walk establishes completeness of extraction, not completeness of institutional coverage.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Large training states could have records from numerous contributors and campaigns, keeping every institution below 25.49%, whereas a territory represented by one or a few contributors would yield 51.47% or 100% concentration. The 100% result is especially compatible with single-contributor coverage and does not require the territory's real institutional landscape to be narrow.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "selective institutional participation",
        "digitization or harvesting coverage artifact",
        "completeness-of-extraction versus completeness-of-catalogue confound",
        "selection in which holdings were catalogued"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Construct an independent census of manuscript-holding institutions in each territory, then compare it with portal contributors and obtain record or inventory counts from omitted institutions. Recompute top-1 shares after adding those holdings. The stated mechanism predicts that near-comprehensive coverage will remain highly concentrated; this rival predicts substantial omitted holdings and a marked decline in the dominant institution's share.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Many independently verified manuscript repositories are absent from the portal, and incorporating their inventories reduces the 51.47% or 100% share substantially."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The portal may encode multiple departments, branches, campuses, or custodial repositories under one umbrella institution or headquarters identifier in the union territories, while using finer-grained institution identifiers in the large states. The measured concentration would then reflect entity-resolution granularity rather than fewer independent institutions.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Coarse umbrella coding can make heterogeneous holdings appear as one 51.47% or 100% institution. Finer coding of comparable departments or branches in the training states would divide their records among several institution labels and keep their top-1 shares below 25.49%.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "institution-identifier granularity",
        "umbrella-organization aggregation",
        "headquarters attribution",
        "inconsistent entity resolution across states"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Audit the dominant institution's records using accession series, collection names, department or branch fields, physical addresses, and custodial inventories. Split the umbrella label into physically and administratively independent custodial units and recompute top-1 share using the same unit definition applied to training-state institutions.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The dominant label resolves into several independent custodians and no consistently defined subunit exceeds 25.49%, while analogous training-state departments were already recorded separately."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "A territory may contain an exceptionally large flagship collection created by historical transfers, endowments, institutional consolidation, or a specialized collecting mandate. Concentration would then be driven by an anomalously large numerator at one institution, not by a scarcity of other institutions.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "One historically accumulated collection can account for 51.47% or even all catalogued records despite the surrounding city having many potential repositories. Large multi-city states can remain below 25.49% because their total holdings include several large regional collections, diluting any single flagship institution.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "legacy acquisition-history effect",
        "institutional consolidation or transfer",
        "flagship-repository size effect",
        "numerator-size versus institutional-count confounding"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For an expanded set of states and territories, measure the number of independently operating manuscript institutions, each institution's absolute holdings, and documented bulk transfers or consolidated collections. Model top-1 share separately as a function of institutional count and of the dominant institution's absolute collection-size outlier status. The rival predicts concentration specifically where a flagship collection is an extreme size outlier, including places without unusually few institutions; the stated mechanism predicts concentration primarily where the independent-institution count is low.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The territories have no unusually small independent-institution landscape, but their dominant repositories are exceptional absolute-size outliers traceable to bulk acquisition or consolidation, and comparable flagship repositories elsewhere show similarly high concentration."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
