# r3-b1-24

**Claim (as registered):** Within the tradition-routing instrument's own accounting, one specific failure mode -- a real language/script value present in the source data but not yet recognized by the routing instrument's own vocabulary snapshot (a curation gap, distinct from a genuinely blank field) -- never accounts for 35% or more of a complete state's records.

**Proposed mechanism:** Distinguishes a data-CURATION gap (fixable by extending the routing instrument's own vocabulary, a project-side limitation) from a genuine source-data gap (blank fields in the original catalogue, a different claim).

**Scope:** Source: NAMAMI (India), a state-facetted manuscript-holdings portal (holdings, not origin -- every record is held-by, not produced-by, the state). Training: 11 states with a complete portal walk (~4.22M records: Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal). Holdout: 9 more states/union territories walked to completion after this claim was fixed (Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Haryana, Delhi, Manipur, Puducherry, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand), each landed as a complete, reconciled count before testing. All data comes from one portal, so survival across states shows stability within this portal's own cataloguing practice, not independently of it.

**Training-side evidence:** One state shows this failure mode on 29.45% of its records (the lone large outlier); every other complete state is under 1.4%.

**Holdout test and outcome:** Tested across all nine India holdout states/UTs, including particular interest in whether this pattern was a one-off or would recur in another large state; every tested state's share stayed under the 35% ceiling.

**Status:** Survived every tested holdout state.
