# r2-edh-b1-25

**Claim (as registered):** Photographic-documentation coverage (the inverse of the share of rows explicitly marked as having no image) is highly heterogeneous: at least one eligible province lands with over 40% 'no image' rows, AND at least one lands under 3%.

**Proposed mechanism:** Photographic documentation effort and resourcing is proposed to vary by province/collection history (a curatorial-resourcing measure, the photographic-coverage counterpart of the monument-type-coverage heterogeneity claim above), not to cluster around a typical value.

**Scope:** Source: the Epigraphic Database Heidelberg (EDH), a catalogue of Roman-period inscriptions on stone/metal/etc. (physical objects, catalogued separately from a manuscript census). Training: the 33 provinces in the alphabetically first half of EDH's own province-code order (42,009 inscriptions). Holdout: the 33 provinces in the alphabetically second half, minus 'Provincia incerta' (EDH's own catch-all for uncertain findspots, not a real geographic unit, excluded from all arithmetic) -- 32 real provinces, 39,457 inscriptions -- landed in one complete fetch after the claim was fixed. EDH's own content has been fixed since 2021 (the cataloguing project's funding ended), so this holdout tests whether a pattern generalizes across an arbitrary alphabetical split of already-catalogued, unchanging material, not whether it predicts new discoveries. Minimum support: at least 100 rows in a province.

**Training-side evidence:** High end: two training provinces above 40% 'no image' (55.94%, 41.89%). Low end: several training provinces under 0.5%, some at exactly 0.0%.

**Holdout test and outcome:** Of 27 eligible holdout provinces: low end 0.0%, high end 51.25%.

**Status:** Survived (both extremes reproduced in the holdout).
