---
conjecture: r2-edh-b1-02
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: "Reply arrived unlabeled after a clipboard mix-up on block 1; matched to 02 by its own deciding numbers (18.20%/11.87%/30% ceiling) — unambiguous."
---

{
"rivals": [
{
"mechanism": "The alphabetical ordering of EDH province codes happens to place the largest and most intensively catalogued provinces preferentially into the first half; the second-half holdout therefore contains no province large enough to reach 30% simply because of the accident of name sorting, not because excavation or collection efforts are inherently bounded within any half-alphabet partition.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If the major high-volume provinces sort earlier in the alphabet, the training maximum of 18.20% and the still-lower holdout maximum of 11.87% are the expected result of that ordering; any other arbitrary split that mixed large and small provinces differently could produce a higher holdout share, yet the observed alphabetical split keeps both sides under 30%.",
"named_confounds": ["administrative or geographic classification artifact", "alphabetical ordering of province codes", "unit-of-count effect from name-sorted partitions"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Re-partition the full EDH corpus by several alternative non-alphabetical schemes (for example, by geographic region, by modern country, by approximate number of inscriptions, or by random balanced splits) and recompute the maximum single-province share within each resulting 'holdout' half. Measure how often the maximum exceeds 30%.",
"computable_on_held_data": true,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If alternative partitions frequently produce a single-province share above 30% while the alphabetical split does not, this favors the rival (ordering artifact); if every reasonable balanced partition keeps the maximum under 30%, this favors the proposed bound on excavation/collection dominance."
}
},
{
"mechanism": "EDH's long-running, multi-contributor cataloguing strategy itself prevented any single province from accumulating a dominant share of the published records; the low maximum in both the training and holdout halves is therefore a property of the database's own collection and publication practices rather than a reflection of underlying excavation or survival patterns in the Roman provinces.",
"why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A project that systematically drew contributions from many national and regional teams would keep even the largest province well below 30% of any large partition; the observed training maximum of 18.20% and holdout maximum of 11.87% then follow directly from that editorial practice, independent of whether any real excavation effort dominated a geographic half.",
"named_confounds": ["selection effects in what got catalogued", "cataloguing or data-entry practice of a multi-contributor project", "digitization and publication priorities"],
"discriminating_test": {
"description": "Compare EDH province shares against independent tallies of published Roman inscriptions (for example, from national corpora, CIL volumes, or other epigraphic databases) for the same provinces; measure whether EDH under-represents the largest provinces relative to those external counts.",
"computable_on_held_data": false,
"what_result_favors_rival": "If external counts show one or more provinces exceeding 30% of the corresponding half while EDH keeps them lower, this favors the rival (EDH collection strategy); if the external shares are similarly bounded, this favors the proposed real bound on excavation/collection dominance."
}
}
],
"no_viable_rival": false,
"notes": ""
}
