---
conjecture: r3-b1-34
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: 2
validation: VALID
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "The NAMAMI ingestion adapter or destination schema assigns the holdings flag as an unconditional constant or default, independently of whether the intended scope-classification logic actually ran. The observed invariant would therefore be guaranteed by construction rather than demonstrate successful bookkeeping for every record.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "All 20 states and union territories were processed through the same portal-specific pipeline, so an unconditional assignment would produce zero exceptions in both training and holdout data regardless of record content or state.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "hard-coded source-adapter value",
        "database or schema default",
        "shared-pipeline common-mode artifact"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Reharvest a stratified sample from every state while logging the raw scope value, execution of the intended classification branch, and the final stored value. Also run a shadow transformation with the default disabled and the classification branch deliberately bypassed. Correct bookkeeping predicts explicit assignment provenance for every true value and missing or rejected values when assignment is bypassed; the rival predicts true values without upstream provenance or despite bypassing classification.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Some or all records remain flagged as holdings when the classification logic did not execute, or the raw-to-stored lineage shows that the value came only from a constant or schema default."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The exception test may be blind to non-true values because its evaluated view or predicate already excludes them, for example through a holdings-only filter or a SQL comparison that does not count NULL. Zero exceptions would then be a property of the test denominator rather than of all harvested records.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the same filtering or null-handling logic was used for every state, it would return zero exceptions identically in the 11 training states and nine holdouts even if false, null, or unparseable values existed outside the evaluated view.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "conditioned test denominator",
        "SQL NULL-handling artifact",
        "post-harvest selection effect"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Query the unfiltered base table for every harvested record and group by the raw flag value, using a null-safe exception predicate such as IS DISTINCT FROM TRUE. Reconcile that base-table denominator by state and record identifier against the denominator used by the registered test, including rejected or unparseable rows.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The base-table scan finds false, null, invalid, or omitted records that were absent from the registered test denominator while the original test still reports zero exceptions."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": ""
}
