---
conjecture: r3-b1-31
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": "State-level ratios are generated primarily by the mix and size of participating holding institutions, not by the literary culture of the state. A few large libraries or community repositories with specialized acquisition histories can make a state appear vernacular-dominant even when that pattern is not broadly regional.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "The training exception and both held-out exceptions could each contain one or a few disproportionately large vernacular-focused collections, while most other states are dominated by Sanskrit-oriented institutional collections. This directly explains why exceptions recur in geographically separate states and is especially plausible because records are assigned by present holding location rather than manuscript origin.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "holding-location versus production-origin confounding",
        "repository-composition effect",
        "institutional acquisition and relocation history",
        "unequal institutional coverage"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Partition every state by holding institution, calculate institution-level ratios and record shares, and recompute state comparisons after equal-weighting institutions or matching institutions by type and size. Also remove each state's largest repository in turn. The regional-tradition mechanism predicts vernacular dominance across many local institutions; the rival predicts that exceptions are concentrated in a few high-volume repositories and disappear or weaken sharply after standardization or leave-one-repository-out analysis.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The exceptional ratios are driven by a small number of repositories, and institution-standardized or leave-largest-out ratios become sanskritic-dominant."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "State- or institution-specific cataloguing conventions may determine whether materially similar manuscripts receive Sanskritic or vernacular language labels. Differences in handling script, commentary language, multilingual works, aliases, and uncertain language identification could therefore create apparent state-level linguistic traditions.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Most cataloguing centers may default classical works to Sanskritic labels, producing widespread Sanskritic dominance, while the three exceptional states' cataloguers may preferentially record the language of script, commentary, translation, or local usage as vernacular. The same convention could operate in both the training exception and the two held-out exceptions without requiring all three to share the proposed cultural mechanism.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "state-specific language-labeling practice",
        "script-language conflation",
        "multilingual-record routing",
        "inconsistent metadata normalization"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Using raw language strings and title or work identifiers, match repeated canonical works across states and compare how identical or closely matched works are routed. Then apply one state-blind crosswalk that treats aliases, multilingual entries, scripts, commentaries, and translations identically, and recompute every ratio. The proposed mechanism predicts that exceptional states remain vernacular-dominant after harmonization; the rival predicts systematic cross-state labeling differences and attenuation or reversal of the exceptions.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "Matched works are disproportionately labeled vernacular in the exceptional states but Sanskritic elsewhere, and standardized recoding removes or substantially reduces their vernacular dominance."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The ratios may reflect unequal record-generation granularity or bulk-harvest composition rather than unequal manuscript holdings: vernacular items may have been entered individually in some state batches while Sanskritic materials were bundled, omitted, or represented at collection level. A single large imported inventory can consequently dominate millions of nominal records.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "Ordinary state harvests could yield Sanskritic dominance, while the training exception and two held-out exceptions happened to include large, finely enumerated vernacular inventories. This produces both the original near-unique pattern and the later additional exceptions, including an extreme ratio such as 0.05, without positing unusually strong vernacular manuscript cultures.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "record-to-manuscript unit mismatch",
        "unequal cataloguing granularity",
        "bulk-import batch effect",
        "near-duplicate or component-record inflation",
        "differential digitization coverage"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Cluster records by repository, accession stem, catalogue source, import sequence or date, and near-duplicate title-description metadata; measure the effective number of independent clusters and recompute ratios using one count per accession or cluster. Perform leave-one-batch-out analyses. A cultural mechanism predicts stable vernacular dominance across batches and counting rules; this rival predicts dominance concentrated in one or a few inventories and strong sensitivity to deduplication or cluster weighting.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The exceptional ratios collapse toward or above 1 after accession-level deduplication, cluster weighting, or removal of a small number of bulk-import batches."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": "The held-out outcome establishes that the exception was not substantively unique, but it does not by itself distinguish regional literary culture from repository composition or catalogue-production mechanisms. The withdrawal of the specifically predicted state also means the proposed mechanism's most targeted forecast was not evaluated."
}
