---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-12
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: "en-dashes transcribed as unicode escapes. r2's findspot-concentration test computable via findspot fields."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "High raw counts of military diplomas reflect modern recovery, publication, and museum-collection intensity in provinces that have been the focus of military archaeology, rather than a concentration of ancient veteran-diploma deposition on garrisoned frontiers.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If modern project and museum activity drives the recorded counts, the training frontier provinces with high numbers and the two named holdout provinces (45 and 16) can all clear the floor of 3 simply because those areas received intensive modern attention to military finds; provinces without such attention remain at 0\u20131 even if ancient deposition occurred.",
"named_confounds": ["selection effects in what got catalogued", "modern archaeological and museum collection intensity", "publication bias toward military artefacts"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Compare EDH diploma counts against independent tallies from regional archaeological reports, museum catalogues, or the CIL for the same provinces; measure whether high EDH counts correspond more closely to known intensive modern military-excavation programs than to frontier status alone.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If high diploma counts track modern project intensity more strongly than frontier location, and some non-frontier provinces with intensive military archaeology also exceed 3 while some frontier provinces without it stay low, this favors the rival; if counts remain tightly linked to frontier status after controlling for modern intensity, this favors the proposed ancient deposition mechanism."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "The elevated diploma counts in the named upper-Danube provinces (and in the high-count training frontiers) are driven by the presence of one or a few large known findspots or museum assemblages that entered EDH as bulk contributions, rather than by a diffuse pattern of deposition across actively-garrisoned frontier zones.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A small number of high-yield findspots or museum collections can produce the training extremes (44, 17, 13) and the holdout counts (45, 16) while most other provinces remain at 0\u20131; the claim then survives because the named targets happened to contain such assemblages, not because of a general frontier-deposition process.",
"named_confounds": ["unit-of-count concentration in a few findspots or collections", "selection effects from bulk museum or excavation contributions", "geographic clustering of known diploma caches"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Identify the individual findspots or museum provenances responsible for the majority of diplomas in the high-count provinces; recompute the province totals after excluding the single largest findspot or collection in each. Measure whether the remaining diffuse counts still clear the floor of 3 in the named holdout provinces and the training frontiers.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If excluding the largest single findspot or collection drops one or both named provinces (or several training frontiers) below 3, this favors the rival (concentration in a few assemblages); if the counts remain above 3 even after removing the largest contributions, this favors the proposed general frontier-deposition mechanism."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
