← All conjectures · Networks & trade
Hanseatic Shapley values
Status is derived only from the shepherd-authored triage/prediction data above -- community submissions and claims are a separate overlay and can never change it (see the participation panel below).
“Anticipated in print” means the direction of this claim already appears in scholarship, while this exact test has never been run — it records prior art, not proof; nothing here counts as supported or falsified until a registered resolution says so.
Claim (verbatim)
Hanseatic Shapley values. The Shapley value, cooperative game theory's canonical answer to fair division, pays each member of a coalition its average marginal contribution to the coalition's worth. The Hanseatic League was such a coalition: member cities jointly controlled Baltic and North Sea trade routes, and the League's collective bargaining power won privileges at the great kontore — London, Bruges, Bergen, Novgorod. The conjecture is that the League's internal politics implicitly computed the game-theoretic solution: the privileges a city enjoyed should track its Shapley value in a route-control game, where a city's contribution is what its routes add to any coalition's controlled trade. And when shocks rearranged the routes — a war, a blockade, a new passage — privilege rankings should re-rank in the direction the recomputed Shapley values dictate.
Prediction clause (verbatim)
Build a period-by-period route-control network model of the Hanseatic League, compute each member city's Shapley value in a cooperative game whose coalition worth is controlled trade volume, and rank cities by privileges from the privilege lists. Primary clause: privilege rank correlates with Shapley rank at Spearman ρ ≥ 0.5 (p < 0.05) within periods, and after documented route shocks the direction of privilege re-ranking matches the direction of Shapley re-ranking for at least 70% of affected cities. The verdict follows the primary clause.
Kill-dataset (verbatim)
privilege lists vs network model.
In the kill-dataset registry:
Nobody has run this test. The kill-data is named above. If you can run it — or you know the paper that already settles it — claim the kill or submit the prior scholarship. Kills and prior scholarship are credited here, by name, as they come in.
On Inferpedia
This conjecture is linked to the following pages on Inferpedia, an encyclopedia of the missing — working atlas pages, some still early scaffolding.
Provenance
Run: Imported conversation (verbatim harvest) · model: claude-fable-5
Origin: operator conversation with Claude Fable 5 at max effort, conducted 2026-07-03, relayed verbatim by the operator into the shepherd session on 2026-07-04. No ModelRun exists for the original generation (it happened outside the pipeline); this transcript file is the canonical capture. Transcript path: docs/generated/conjecture_harvest_fablemax_20260703.md. Model (operator-attested, not pipeline-recorded): claude-fable-5. Novelty disclaimer (verbatim, load-bearing -- rule 4): "Same caveat as before, doubled: at 100 items across all of archaeology and history, some of these will have cousins in the literature I can't check. What I can guarantee is the format — each links two things not normally linked, and each names the dataset or measurement that would kill it."
Novelty / leakage triage
anticipated in the literature — this exact test has never been run
Quantitative network analyses of the Hansa exist (Diet-participation embeddedness; 190-year captain/city trade-persistence econometrics) and Kontor privileges are described qualitatively; computing route-control Shapley values and testing privilege tracking or post-shock re-ranking was not located.
Sources cited by the triage
- Rauch, Marczinek & Maurer, 'Networks in trade - Evidence from the legacy of the Hanseatic league', JIE — Quantitative Hansa network economics
Predictions
No prediction registered yet.
Weigh in
No community feedback yet.
New here? Create an account first
Create an account or sign in and your feedback is tied to you — you can track it, get replies, and claim this conjecture so others know you’re working on it. Prefer not to? Just leave your take below as a guest — only the name you type is shown.
Add your take
Posted immediately (spam is removed). Community feedback is never an adjudicated verdict and never changes this conjecture's triage label or status above.