Inferpedia - an encyclopedia of the missing
Article Published L5 Inferred source

An inferred common source behind the A/B chronicle tradition

A beta Inferopedia entry from the controlled demo source pack.

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested. It is an inference from the evidence listed below.
Existence warrant
87
how strongly the evidence implies it existed
Direct attestation
0
how directly sources name it — low is normal here
Specificity
40
how precisely it can be pinned down
Reconstruction
63
how much rests on modern reconstruction
Counterevidence
0
pressure from contrary evidence
Quotient
tentative
first-order inference

New to Inferpedia? How to read this page · what these numbers mean

Epistemic status

Unattested inferred entity

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested. It is an inference from the evidence listed below.

Summary

Inferopedia infers that a common source or tightly shared tradition probably stood behind the A/B chronicle witnesses because they preserve matching rare traces.

What is being inferred

A lost intermediary source, or a closely bounded shared tradition, behind the two demo chronicle witnesses. No title, author, date, or physical form is inferred.

What is attested

  • Chronicle A preserves the rare sequence storm, council, oath, exile.
  • Chronicle B preserves the same sequence and repeats the unusual wording ash at noon.
  • The demo evidence ledger treats the two witnesses as separate independence clusters.

Why infer this entity

  1. Two chronicle witnesses share the same rare sequence of details. (evidence: 1, 2)
  2. The witnesses repeat an unusual phrase that is not needed by the plot sequence. (evidence: 3)

Evidence ledger

  • Evidence 1: Demo Chronicle A, chunk 1. "storm, council, oath, exile" Relevance: Shared wording.
  • Evidence 2: Demo Chronicle B, chunk 1. "storm, council, oath, exile" Relevance: Shared wording.
  • Evidence 3: Demo Chronicle Note, chunk 1. "storm, council, oath, exile" Relevance: Shared wording.

Counterarguments

  • One witness may have copied directly from the other.
  • The wording may come from a broader oral or genre formula.

Confidence scores

What would change the score

  • Discovery of a direct named source would raise attestation and change the entry type.
  • Proof of direct copying between the witnesses would weaken the common-source inference.
  • A wider corpus showing the phrase is common would reduce specificity and warrant.

Related lacunae

  • Parent seam and child seams are not yet expanded in this demo revision.