AI-generated conjecture · below the evidence/publication boundary

Pilgrim-badge lock-in

Status: Prior

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).

This is a proposed connection between two domains, generated by a language model. It is not an article and not evidence: it sits below the evidence/publication boundary. A quantitative prediction and a named kill-dataset are attached (when registered) so the claim stays falsifiable rather than merely evocative.

Claim (verbatim)

Pilgrim-badge lock-in. Shrine market shares (Thames badge finds) follow Polya-urn path dependence: early leads persist beyond what miracle registers justify. Falsify: badge chronology vs miracle-count records.

Kill-dataset (verbatim)

badge chronology vs miracle-count records.

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

Adjacent (closely related prior work exists)

Finds-based shrine badge-share rankings exist (e.g. the Salisbury assemblage: Canterbury dominant, Walsingham second) and badge scholarship is substantial, but no Polya-urn/path-dependence modeling of shrine shares against miracle registers was located. Important kill-dataset caveat surfaced by the dossier: a 2014 reassessment (Lee) attributes Thames badge concentrations to riverbank erosion and dredging history rather than pilgrim deposition — any resolution must address that taphonomic critique before treating Thames finds as market-share data.

Salisbury Museum medieval catalogue, 'Pilgrim Souvenirs and Secular Badges' — Finds-based shrine share ranking
Lee 2014 river-deposition reassessment (search-synthesized; original not fetched) — Thames concentrations may be erosion/dredging artifacts

Predictions

No prediction registered yet.

Weigh in

No community feedback yet.

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.