Resolution: Killed
Caveats: Killed on the registered unweighted-means ratio: 0.524 against SUPPORTED-iff-<0.2; the reported-only pooled alternative (0.725) is weaker still, so no aggregation choice rescues it. The DIRECTION held solidly -- Kodashim tractates cite 'Yerushalmi' at roughly half the rate of tractates whose Yerushalmi survives (0.33 vs 0.63 per-daf) -- and the registrant's openly-disclosed confound explains the gap between direction and threshold: the hit definition counts EVERY Yerushalmi lemma, and the Tosafot's cross-order citation practice floods the Kodashim numerator (Menachot 0.65, Bekhorot 0.55 per-daf; the concordance sample catches a Yerushalmi Berakhot citation inside Bava Batra in the act). The registration called this confound direction conservative-against-support ex ante, and it was. CALIBRATION: another multiplicative-separation death (<0.2 = a 5x separation wagered; world gave 1.9x), joining the dead class exactly where the registration's own calibration note placed the risk; the categorical mechanism (a corpus that never existed) did not produce categorical separation because the MEASUREMENT is of citation habit, not corpus existence. Blinding note: the compute worked under opaque A/B labels with no thresholds -- the strongest firewall of the batch.
Registered against the Sefaria API (www.sefaria.org/api/... — known-PERMITTED instrument, the house's proven route for five prior resolutions), text layers 'Rashi on <Tractate>' and 'Tosafot on <Tractate>' of the Babylonian Talmud. PREDICTION VERBATIM: "Prediction: string-counting the citation lemma \"ירושלמי\" (Yerushalmi) in Sefaria's Tosafot and base-commentary layers on the Babylonian Talmud, the mean per-daf occurrence rate on tractates of the order Kodashim (Zevahim, Menahot, Hullin, Bekhorot, Arakhin, Temurah, Keritot, Me'ilah, Tamid) will be below one-fifth (a ratio < 0.2) of the mean per-daf rate on tractates whose Yerushalmi is extant (the orders Moed, Nashim, Nezikin) - primary clause: the < 0.2 Kodashim-to-extant per-daf Yerushalmi-citation ratio; the verdict follows it. The test voids for coverage if fewer than 100 total \"Yerushalmi\" citations are recovered across the sampled tractates." FULL OPERATIONALIZATION PINNED: LAYERS: for each tractate T, the layer set = the Sefaria indices titled exactly 'Rashi on T' and 'Tosafot on T' ('base-commentary' = Rashi, the printed base layer; Sefaria's titling is followed mechanically, so pseudo-Rashi layers printed and titled as Rashi count as registered). Instrument-existence fact verified at registration from a single /api/index table-of-contents call: both layers exist for every pinned tractate EXCEPT Tamid, which has neither 'Rashi on Tamid' nor 'Tosafot on Tamid' — Tamid stays in the prediction's verbatim Kodashim list but contributes no layer text on this instrument and is excluded from the Kodashim mean with its absence reported (effective Kodashim n=8). TRACTATE GROUPS PINNED: Kodashim = ["Zevachim", "Menachot", "Chullin", "Bekhorot", "Arakhin", "Temurah", "Keritot", "Meilah", "Tamid"]; extant-Yerushalmi group (verbatim 'the orders Moed, Nashim, Nezikin', realized as the Bavli tractates of those orders): Moed = ["Shabbat", "Eruvin", "Pesachim", "Rosh Hashanah", "Yoma", "Sukkah", "Beitzah", "Taanit", "Megillah", "Moed Katan", "Chagigah"] (Shekalim excluded — it has no Bavli gemara; the text printed in the Bavli cycle is the Yerushalmi's own), Nashim = ["Yevamot", "Ketubot", "Nedarim", "Nazir", "Sotah", "Gittin", "Kiddushin"], Nezikin = ["Bava Kamma", "Bava Metzia", "Bava Batra", "Sanhedrin", "Makkot", "Shevuot", "Avodah Zarah", "Horayot"]. HIT DEFINITION: over the concatenated Hebrew text of a tractate's layer set (default Hebrew version returned by GET /api/texts/<ref>, versionTitle recorded), hits(T) = substring count of 'ירושלמי' PLUS substring counts of the abbreviation forms 'ירוש' immediately followed by one of the three abbreviation marks {U+0027 apostrophe, U+05F3 Hebrew geresh, U+2019 right single quote} where the match is not part of a 'ירושלמי' match (prefixed forms בירושלמי, הירושלמי etc. are caught by substring matching; the mark requirement keeps ירושה/ירושלים out). DENOMINATOR: amudim(T) = number of top-level sections of the BASE Talmud text index for T as returned by the API; dapim(T) = amudim(T)/2. The identical convention applies to every tractate, so any daf-vs-amud convention choice cancels in the cross-group ratio. RATES: rate(T) = hits(T)/dapim(T); group mean = UNWEIGHTED arithmetic mean of rate(T) over the group's tractates possessing at least one pinned layer (pinned realization of 'mean per-daf occurrence rate on tractates'; the pooled alternative sum(hits)/sum(dapim) is computed and reported, non-verdict, stated ex ante). RATIO = mean_Kodashim / mean_extant.
Resolution criteria — the registered fine print
Resolution criteria: COMPUTE RECIPE (blind agent): (1) GET /api/index existence check for the 70 pinned layer titles; (2) for each existing layer, fetch the full Hebrew text via the API (whole-node or per-section calls, >=1s spacing; record versionTitle per layer); (3) count hits per the pinned definition; (4) fetch each base tractate's index for amudim(T); (5) compute rate(T), the two unweighted group means, and RATIO. CLAUSE PRECEDENCE: (1) INCONCLUSIVE_BY_ACCESS if any pinned layer that exists in the index cannot be fetched in full, or any base-tractate section count is unavailable; (2) INCONCLUSIVE_BY_DESIGN if total hits across all sampled tractates (both groups, all fetched layers) < 100 (the prediction's own void, quoted verbatim); (3) SUPPORTED iff RATIO < 0.2; (4) REFUTED otherwise. REPORTED, NON-VERDICT: per-tractate hits, dapim, and rates; the pooled-ratio alternative; the abbreviation-form share of hits (ירוש'-type vs full ירושלמי); Tamid's layer absence; per-layer versionTitles; and a 30-hit random concordance sample (40 chars context) for face-validity audit. Compute firewalled from Ratner's Ahawath Zion we-Jeruscholaim (the printed tractate-by-tractate Yerushalmi-citation canvass), from the house's prior Sefaria computes, and from this batch's other rows.
Known-priors disclosure — what the registrant already knew
Known priors disclosure: Triage 2026-07-17 graded ADJACENT: that Yerushalmi Kodashim never existed (and its purported witness was the Friedlaender forgery) is published consensus — Strack-Stemberger; Sussmann's introduction to the Academy of the Hebrew Language Yerushalmi; Ratner's Ahawath Zion we-Jeruscholaim collects rishonic Yerushalmi citations tractate by tractate — but the triage explicitly notes the instrument counts EVERY Yerushalmi lemma on Kodashim dapim, including genuine cross-order citations (Tosafot on Hullin and Zevahim do adduce Yerushalmi from Zeraim and Moed), so the Kodashim rate is nonzero-by-mechanism and the <0.2 ratio is a live, un-run wager, not a tautology. INSTRUMENT-EXISTENCE PROBE DISCLOSED: one GET /api/index call (the full public TOC) verified layer existence — 34 of 35 pinned tractates carry both layers, Tamid carries neither; NO text, hit counts, or lengths were fetched at registration, so no effect quantity was glimpsed. SCOUTED MASSES: none beyond layer existence — daf masses are derived in-run from the API's own section counts; the >=100-hit coverage floor is the prediction's own and its mass cannot be pre-scouted without counting effect hits (stated per lesson 5; qualitatively the registrant expects Tosafot's Yerushalmi citations to run to many hundreds corpus-wide, from the standing scholarship, with no number known). HOUSE-PRIOR DISCLOSURE: five house Sefaria computes exist (Mekhilta coverage, Yerushalmi Nezikin segment lengths, targum expansion, Rif coverage, MT/Tur citation density); none touched Tosafot or Rashi citation lemmata; no effect quantity for this item exists in-house. CALIBRATION CLASS NOTE (binding lesson 6): the <0.2 primary is a MULTIPLICATIVE-separation pin — the historically dead class (nearest kin: the <0.67 Bavot-segment pin died at 0.87); registered faithfully per the anti-softening rule; selection accepted the risk because the mechanism (a wholly absent target corpus versus merely cross-order echo) is categorical rather than marginal, unlike the dead pins, which compared two existing corpora. The registrant states the confound direction openly: cross-order citation traffic can only RAISE the Kodashim numerator, i.e. push AGAINST the conjecture — the faithful test is conservative-against-support, not rigged toward it.
Method and dataset — how it was measured
Firewalled blind compute (claude-sonnet-5) fetched and counted under NEUTRAL group labels (no direction inferable) per the pinned hit definition (full lemma + mark-form abbreviations; 1,220 full / 8 mark-form) and amudim/2 denominators; all group aggregation performed at verdict time by claude-fable-5 per the registered operationalization (UNWEIGHTED tractate-rate means; pooled alternative reported-only). Clause precedence: access passed, coverage passed, SUPPORTED iff mean_Kodashim/mean_extant < 0.2, else REFUTED.
Dataset: Sefaria API, Rashi+Tosafot layers on 34 of 35 pinned Bavli tractates (Tamid carries neither layer, excluded per registration; effective Kodashim n=8). 1,058 API calls, zero failures; 1,228 total lemma hits vs the registered 100-hit coverage floor (12x clearance). versionTitles recorded (Vilna Edition throughout).
computed 2026-07-19