---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-06
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: "r2 (type-composition limit) computable via inschriftgattung x date_precision cross-tab; r1 needs original-text review."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "EDH's own editorial and data-entry conventions systematically prefer to record date ranges (or leave dates as spans) even when a single year is available or strongly implied by the text; the observed ceiling under 40% is therefore a property of the database's recording practice rather than of Roman epigraphic dating conventions themselves.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the catalogue consistently codes ambiguous or formulaic dates as ranges, every province's exact-precision share will stay below 40% regardless of the underlying epigraphic material; the training maximum of 38.14% and the holdout maximum of 38.46% then reflect that uniform editorial preference, not an intrinsic rarity of single-year dating in the ancient record.",
"named_confounds": ["cataloguing or data-entry practice for date precision", "editorial convention of the EDH project", "classification rules for exact versus range dates"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Sample dated inscriptions from the highest-share provinces in both training and holdout; examine the original Latin (or Greek) texts and any external scholarly editions to determine how often a single year is explicitly stated or unambiguously recoverable. Recompute the exact-precision rate under a more liberal coding rule that accepts clear single-year inferences.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If a substantial fraction of EDH 'range' dates are in fact single-year statements or clear inferences, and the liberal coding pushes one or more provinces above 40%, this favors the rival (EDH recording convention); if independent examination confirms that true single-year dates remain under 40% even under liberal rules, this favors the proposed intrinsic rarity in Roman epigraphy."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "Exact single-year dates are concentrated in a minority of inscription types or formulas (for example, certain consular or imperial dedications) that never constitute more than about 40% of any province's dated corpus; the ceiling is therefore a compositional limit of the types that receive precise dates rather than a general documentation convention across all epigraphy.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If only specific monument categories routinely carry single-year dates, and those categories remain a minority in every province, both the training maximum of 38.14% and the holdout maximum of 38.46% will stay under 40% simply because of the mix of inscription types present, without any broader rarity of precise dating.",
"named_confounds": ["selection effects in which monument types receive exact dates", "compositional mix of inscription categories by province", "survival or preservation bias toward certain dated formulas"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Classify dated inscriptions by monument type or formula (using EDH type fields or free-text keywords) within the highest-share provinces; compute the exact-precision rate inside the most date-rich types versus the remainder. Measure whether any single type exceeds 40% exact-precision while the province-level aggregate stays under the ceiling.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If one or more inscription types show exact-precision rates well above 40% while the province aggregates remain under 40% because those types are a minority, this favors the rival (type-composition limit); if even the most date-rich types stay under or near 40%, this favors the proposed general documentation-convention ceiling."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
