---
conjecture: r3-b1-06
family: codex
model: "gpt-5.6-sol (codex-cli 0.144.0-alpha.4, ChatGPT-subscription auth)"
model_stamp_corrected: "2026-08-07 — archives were first written stamped gpt-5.5 by a runner bug (the stamper read config.toml's default instead of the -m flag actually passed). The calls themselves ran on gpt-5.6-sol throughout; only the label was wrong. Corrected in place, noted here rather than silently."
received: 2026-08-07
template: PROMPT_TEMPLATE_v1.md sha256 4344aabfacfe88362c56d89b6c89d594a7bf3a221e18a16b0e351482447e512f
rivals_parsed: 3
validation: VALID
---

{
  "rivals": [
    {
      "mechanism": "The low rate is a denominator artifact caused by the Iranian catalogue counting subordinate, text-level, or component records that do not independently carry an institution, whereas comparators count primarily physical-item records. A stable mixture of component and item records would keep the aggregate rate near 70% as the catalogue grows.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "If roughly 30% of rows inherit their location from a parent record or have no independently applicable institution field, the observed 69.86% row-level completeness follows without unusually incomplete institutional metadata. Comparators using one row per physical object would naturally approach 100%; because no holdout has run, this rival fully accounts for the evidence currently available.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "unit-of-count mismatch between component records and physical-item records",
        "parent-child inheritance of holding institution",
        "non-applicable rows included in the completeness denominator"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Classify Iranian rows by record type and parent-child linkage, propagate institutions from linked parent item records, and recompute completeness using only independent physical-item records. Also compute completeness separately for component and item rows.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if unresolved attribution is concentrated among component or child rows and item-level completeness after inheritance or denominator correction approaches the comparator range. Persistently low completeness among independent item records would favor the stated mechanism."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "Institutions may be present in the catalogue but counted as unresolved because the landing pipeline cannot normalize Persian names, local identifiers, spelling variants, or hierarchical collection labels. The gap would then be an entity-resolution artifact rather than incomplete metadata supplied by contributing institutions.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A source-specific normalization failure could turn many populated institution fields into unresolved values while pipelines for more standardized comparators resolve nearly every record. Stable use of the same identifiers and name variants would also make the apparent gap stable during growth; there is no held-out outcome requiring any additional explanation.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "institution-name entity-resolution failure",
        "script and transliteration variation",
        "unmapped local institution identifiers",
        "ETL classification artifact"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Reinspect or re-harvest the raw institution fields for rows currently classified as unresolved, then resolve them using source identifiers plus Persian-aware normalization and alias clustering. Measure both raw-field presence and post-normalization resolution.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if most nominally unresolved rows contain usable institution values and improved normalization raises completeness close to comparator levels. A predominance of genuinely blank or absent raw fields would favor the stated mechanism."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The Iranian union catalogue may intentionally include manuscripts known only from legacy descriptions, dispersed private collections, sales, losses, or uncertain present locations, while the comparator catalogues predominantly select extant objects already attached to institutions. Missing institutional attribution would therefore reflect catalogue scope and object-location status, not uneven contributor metadata practice.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A broad union catalogue can contain a large, stable fraction of records for which no current institutional holder exists or is knowable, whereas institution-centered catalogues select records conditional on a known repository. That selection difference could produce both the approximately 70% aggregate rate and its persistence as similarly scoped records are added; no held-out test has yet contradicted it.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "selection on known institutional custody",
        "inclusion of legacy or secondary-source records",
        "private or dispersed holdings",
        "unknown-current-location status"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Stratify Iranian records by provenance, source type, custody status, and whether they represent confirmed extant institutional holdings. Recompute completeness within the confirmed institutional-holding stratum and compare it with legacy, private, lost, or untraced strata.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if missing attribution is overwhelmingly concentrated in legacy, private, lost, or untraced records and confirmed institutional holdings have completeness comparable to other sources. Similar missingness within confirmed institutional holdings would favor the stated mechanism."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": "No held-out test has been run, so these rivals are evaluated against the training pattern and their prospective implications only."
}
