The digest is a predator and the smṛti is prey

Status: Anticipated · untested

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)

From about the twelfth century, Sanskrit legal culture produced nibandhas — massive topical digests that excerpted the older smṛti texts so thoroughly that a working jurist no longer needed the originals. On a recopying treadmill, not being needed is a death sentence: copying effort follows demand, and the digest captures exactly the demand its sources used to enjoy. So digests should not merely summarize their sources; they should measurably kill them, truncating the manuscript production of heavily-excerpted smṛtis within a few generations while un-digested peers keep being copied. If it holds, part of what we call lost early dharmaśāstra was not lost to worms and weather but eaten by its own success at being anthologized — and the loss dates become predictable from digest chronology.

Prediction clause (verbatim)

In the NGMPP/NGMCP catalogue, smṛti texts that are principal sources of the major digests will show colophon-date distributions declining sharply within 200 years after the relevant digest's composition, while comparable smṛtis not centrally excerpted show no such decline; the test is the between-group difference in the share of dated copies falling after (digest date + 200 years). Primary clause: digested smṛtis have a significantly smaller post-window copying share than non-digested controls.

Kill-dataset (verbatim)

NGMPP/NGMCP dated colophons for named smṛti works, with digest source-lists and composition dates anchored via the Pandit database and digest texts in the SARIT corpus.

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. Kills and priors are credited here, by name, as they come in.

In the atlas

This conjecture is bridged, as an L1 lead, onto these Inferpedia subject pages.

Provenance

Run: Fresh agent generation · model: claude-fable-5

Generated blind in a single Write with no reads, web access, or database queries; this is the second attempt for wave W14 after a prior instance died to a network error before writing its packet.

Novelty / leakage triage

anticipated in the literature — this exact test has never been run

That nibandha digests displaced/reduced copying-demand for the source smrtis, and that most early Dharmasastra was lost in the manuscript tradition for unclear reasons, is noted qualitatively (Olivelle); the specific falsifiable colophon-date-decline test within 200 yrs of a digest is un-run. Thin field.

Olivelle, 'Hinduism and the History of Dharmaśāstra' (NIAS lecture summary)
'Dharmaśāstra' (Wikipedia) — nibandhas as topical digests of smṛtis

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.