RC-002: Do particular signs show statistically significant terminal-position bias?
Research compilation
Research compilation from a published ICIT-style digitization — not a complete or licensed photographic corpus
Structural finding
Terminal bias is measured as P(end)/P(any) with a minimum-occurrence threshold. Labels stay “ender-biased”, never “suffix” as fact.
Background
- This case is a demonstration of the platform's research-case format.
- It uses the seeded demonstration dataset, not a licensed photographic corpus.
Dataset
- Demonstration dataset version demo-2026.09.
- Inclusion: complete and partial inscriptions as generated; duplicate groups are flagged.
- Exclusion: no claimed museum objects; no unlicensed images.
Method
- Define the pattern in analytical order.
- Count raw, independent-object and duplicate-reduced frequencies.
- Compare with a length-preserving shuffle null model.
- Report limitations and interpretation boundaries in public view.
Results
- See the live analysis modules for counts derived from the current demo seed.
- Directional retention and PMI are descriptive until a verified import is locked.
Negative controls
- A motif-only explanation is not supported as a translation.
- The demo generator itself planted some structure; that is disclosed.
Limitations
- Demo data cannot support historical conclusions.
- Sample sizes for smaller sites are too small for percentage claims.
Interpretation boundary
Do not read this case as a decipherment or as a statement about a real excavated pair until verified plates replace the demo.
Induscript, RC-002, 18 September 2026. Demonstration case.