---
conjecture: r3-b1-27
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 script and language fields may not be independently observed: cataloguers or import routines may infer, default, or normalize script from the recorded language. That practice would suppress precisely the discordant language-script combinations that activate this routing pathway.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A portal-wide metadata convention would make the pathway rare by construction in every state, explaining both the training maximum of 0.033% and all nine holdout passes. Its recurrence is especially plausible because all states share the same portal and cataloguing system.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "non-independent language and script metadata",
        "script-field defaulting or imputation",
        "controlled-vocabulary normalization",
        "data-entry misclassification"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Draw a stratified random sample of records carrying South-Asian language tokens, oversampling missing, generic, or apparently language-matched script values. Have experts determine the actual script from manuscript images or independent shelf descriptions, blinded to the portal classification, and compare the audited override frequency with the portal-derived frequency.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if independently identified non-South-Asian scripts are substantially more frequent than the portal pathway reports, especially among records whose script was missing, defaulted, or matched to language; an audited state-level share reaching 0.1% would be particularly decisive."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "The low state-level share may be a denominator-dilution effect: cross-script material is concentrated in a few specialist repositories, but each state denominator combines those repositories with much larger collections of ordinary South-Asian-script records.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "The same aggregation rule applies to every training and holdout state, so even locally substantial concentrations can remain below 0.1% at state scale. The 107 records in the Tibetan-presence state could therefore reflect a concentrated collection whose signal is diluted by the complete-state denominator.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "state-level denominator dilution",
        "aggregation across heterogeneous repositories",
        "institutional collection-composition effect"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "Recompute the pathway share separately for every holding institution or repository within each completed state, requiring a stated minimum denominator, and perform leave-one-repository-out decompositions of the state totals.",
        "computable_on_held_data": true,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if one or more adequately sized repositories exceed 0.1%—or exceed the state share by a large factor—while the state remains below the ceiling because high-volume repositories with zero or near-zero pathway records dominate its denominator."
      }
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "NAMAMI's participating repositories, accession choices, or manuscript-scope rules may preferentially include Indic and South-Asian-script holdings while omitting or separately inventorying non-South-Asian-script material. The pathway would then be scarce because qualifying objects are selected out before they become portal records.",
      "why_it_explains_the_same_evidence": "A common portal collection policy or participation process would recur across both training and holdout states, producing stable low shares without implying that the underlying holdings themselves have equally low shares. This is distinct from miscoding records already present: it concerns which holdings enter the catalogue at all.",
      "named_confounds": [
        "selection into the catalogue",
        "repository participation bias",
        "manuscript-scope exclusion",
        "uneven digitization or inventory coverage"
      ],
      "discriminating_test": {
        "description": "For a representative sample of portal-listed institutions, obtain complete independent accession registers or local catalogues, identify all South-Asian-language manuscripts written in the specified non-South-Asian scripts, and compare their inclusion rate and aggregate share with NAMAMI's counts.",
        "computable_on_held_data": false,
        "what_result_favors_rival": "The rival is favored if qualifying cross-script holdings are disproportionately absent from NAMAMI and their inclusion raises one or more reconstructed state shares to at least 0.1%, or consistently raises them far more than it raises the denominator."
      }
    }
  ],
  "no_viable_rival": false,
  "notes": "The registered mechanism is primarily a rationale for including the pathway, not a causal account of its rarity. The single-portal design therefore leaves portal-wide measurement, aggregation, and selection mechanisms as serious alternatives."
}
