# Session 11: the Naibbe cipher tested; section-level hyper-simulation; period cipher practice fitted to the herbal sections > Greshko's Naibbe cipher simulated as published and attacked with a structure-constrained solver: close on glyph statistics, misses 19-20 of 21… Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/sessions/SES0DCDMFZAWWNC/session-11-the-naibbe-cipher-tested-section-level-hyper Publisher: Mysteries Department Licence: CC BY 4.0 (credit Mysteries Department and link the page) --- [Voynich Manuscript](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript)[Research sessions](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/sessions)Session 11 Research session 11 · Voynich Manuscript # the Naibbe cipher tested; section-level hyper-simulation; period cipher practice fitted to the herbal sections Greshko's Naibbe cipher simulated as published and attacked with a structure-constrained solver: close on glyph statistics, misses 19-20 of 21 statistics, and no Naibbe key reads the text. A 72-variant Naibbe-family grid scored section by section found the two walls (edge dependency, near-twins). Fifteenth-century cipher practice fitted as one family to Herbal A and B by approximate Bayesian computation gave the closest held-out fit yet (re-spaced homophonic stream, sticky homophones), but its key cannot yet be recovered when sign boundaries must be learned. No reading. Session **11** 28 Oct 2026Test**18** runs**9** evidence [Session 10 · **The layout layer; literature and question audit** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/sessions/SES0DCB54T02Y53/session-10-the-layout-layer-literature-and-question-audit)[Session 12 · **learning sign boundaries with the key (lattice EM), neural posterior for the period cipher, and three borrowed methods tested on planted controls** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/sessions/SES0DCHSYCCGJSK/session-12-learning-sign-boundaries-with-the-key-lattice-em) ## What movedNo question changed standing [What kind of text is it?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG1S1G6D9T/what-kind-of-text-is-it)this question [Is it a cipher of a known language?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG2PB04SQP/is-it-a-cipher-of-a-known-language) +6 evidence, 2 for, 4 against1 answer proposedtaken up again [Latin or Italian under the Naibbe cipher](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/answers/ANS0DC7PMX4XWZF/latin-or-italian-under-the-naibbe-cipher) · proposed this session · 2 for, 3 againstPossible [Each word is a fragment of a verbose cipher](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/answers/ANS0D8FZZC67P7G/each-word-is-a-fragment-of-a-verbose-cipher) · 0 for, 2 againstDisputed **Most likely** unchanged [How was the text produced on the page?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG6BH02GE7/how-was-the-text-produced-on-the-page)this question [What procedure reproduces its statistics?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG6T5R6RRQ/what-procedure-reproduces-its-statistics) +1 evidence, 1 against [A published mechanical procedure produced it](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/answers/ANS0D8FZZ4C2TD3/a-published-mechanical-procedure-produced-it) · 0 for, 2 againstDisputed **Most likely** unchanged [How was the text produced on the page?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG6BH02GE7/how-was-the-text-produced-on-the-page)[What procedure reproduces its statistics?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG6T5R6RRQ/what-procedure-reproduces-its-statistics)this question [Which combination of fifteenth-century cipher practices, if any, reproduces a single section's statistics on its held-out pages?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST0DCAYTD6HZV9/which-combination-of-fifteenth-century-cipher-practices-if) raised this session+2 evidence, 1 for, 1 neutral1 answer proposed [Latin as a re-spaced homophonic stream (period practices)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/answers/ANS0DCBFK8KPD81/latin-as-a-re-spaced-homophonic-stream-period-practices) · proposed this session · 1 for, 0 againstPossible **Open** unchanged ## What's next4 steps set Open Word-internal sign grammar for the period family Kept on this session, not tied to a questionSet this session Open Segmentation-aware solver for the re-spaced stream Kept on this session, not tied to a questionSet this session Open Null keeping the cipher's structure (fitted generator on shuffled Latin) Kept on this session, not tied to a questionSet this session Open Plant identifications as cribs Kept on this session, not tied to a questionSet this session Next steps live on their questions, where anyone can take one up. ## New questions 1 [Which combination of fifteenth-century cipher practices, if any, reproduces a single section's statistics on its held-out pages?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST0DCAYTD6HZV9/which-combination-of-fifteenth-century-cipher-practices-if) QST ## What was done **Date:** 2026-10-28 - Naibbe as published (M-T36): Greshko's tables, card weights and respacing; Latin of the genres, Pliny NH 16 and Dante laid into the manuscript's pages, 30 corpora each. Close on glyph entropy, word length and commonest words for Currier B; outside the spread on 19-20 of 21 statistics, including vocabulary richness, word order, page locality, form-function coupling and every line effect. Latin and Italian give the same numbers. - Naibbe key search (M-T37): class-preserving swap annealing over Greshko's inventory recovers planted keys at 98-99 % on held-out quires; on the manuscript the held-out text is no better than the word-shuffled manuscript (Latin gaps 1.22-1.26 against 1.24-1.30; Italian 1.62 against 1.62). An unconstrained homophonic search failed its own control (11-39 %): structure is what makes keys recoverable. H-CIPHER-NAIBBE added under Q-012. - Hyper-simulation (M-T38): 72 Naibbe-family variants x 6 sections x 10 corpora, order-free page clustering (burst_z), every statistic also on word bodies (first glyph removed; o, ch, q, d begin 61 % of words). Keeping one table for 10-20 draws gives page clustering; no variant reaches the edge dependency or near-twins; best variants miss 5-10 of 12 on fresh seeds. - Period cipher practice (M-T39): homophones and choice, syllable signs, nomenclator, abbreviation, simplified spelling, dropped vowels, copied nulls, three spacings, positional forms, line layer; 4,600 draws on Herbal A and B training pages (D-HERBAL-SPLIT). Re-spaced stream and sticky homophones favoured in both; best held-out fits miss 3 of 12 (Herbal B) and 5 of 12 (Herbal A). H-PERIOD-STREAM added under the new question on period practice. - Crack ladder on Herbal A (M-T40): planted Pliny NH 16 under the fitted setting, key recovered 71 % with true sign boundaries, 11-23 % with learned boundaries; exploratory decode of Herbal A beats its shuffle by 0.26 nats per element but reads as no Latin. Untested beyond rung A. - Open: a word-internal sign grammar for T39; a segmentation-aware solver; a null that keeps the cipher's structure; plant identifications as cribs. - Files: all code and every output is stored on the site byte for byte (SHA-256 equal to the files as written) and attached to M-T36 to M-T40 and their 18 runs, each run with its command, seeds and environment (Python 3.13, two cores, repository commit d1097e42). This includes the full T38 grid (hyper_genre.csv, 1.6 MB, every section x variant x statistic) and every T39 draw (abc_draws.jsonl, 3.9 MB, 4,600 draws with settings, seed and statistics). The code of T39 round 1, which ran before positional forms were added, was rebuilt from the session's edit history and attached to that run; it reproduces all 2,000 round-1 settings and seeds and the statistics of every draw re-simulated. Greshko's tables and the two plaintexts from his repository are a dataset record pinned to commit 719f2f4c with checksums. Runs 18 | Run | Measured | Result | Against | Decision | |---|---|---|---|---| | Naibbe as published, laid into the manuscript's pages: statistics outside the cipher's spread | Statistics (of 21: T15 FIT and HELD, layout MI first/last, glyph H1, word-length sd, top-10 share) with \|z\| > 2 | whole book: 20/20/20 of 21 (genre Latin / Pliny 16 / Dante); Currier B: 20/20/19; Currier A: 19/19/19 | Plain Latin of the genres in the same lines: 20 (book), 17 (B), 21 (A) | Not supported: the published cipher reproduces the manuscript on no statistic except repeated 4-word phrases (rare in both) and, for A and for Dante on B, the top-10 word share | | Naibbe as published against Currier B: glyph entropy, word length and top-word share | H2 glyph units / H1 glyph units / mean word length / share of 10 commonest words: manuscript vs Naibbe mean | h2 2.105 vs 2.167; H1 3.845 vs 3.851; mean length 4.66 vs 4.80; top-10 0.147 vs 0.152 | Plain Latin in the same lines: h2 3.349 · H1 3.973 · mean length 5.61 · top-10 0.128 | Close but outside the spread (z -12, -3, -13, -3): the cipher moves Latin most of the way to the manuscript's glyph statistics, as Greshko reports, without matching them | | Naibbe as published: vocabulary richness and word-order information | Share of word types seen once (hapax) / bits per word saved by word order / repeated 3-word phrases / word-length sd | Currier B: hapax 0.693 vs 0.452; order gain 0.314 vs 0.125; repeated 3-grams 103 vs 27; length sd 1.69 vs 1.51. Whole book: hapax 0.705 vs 0.393; order gain 0.404 vs 0.143; 3-grams 145 vs 56; sd 1.77 vs 1.51 | Plain Latin in the same lines (Currier B): hapax 0.633, order gain 1.73, 3-grams 1,097, sd 2.57 | Fails (z 33, 8, 16, 22 on B): the cipher's vocabulary is too closed (too few one-off words) and its word sequence carries even less information than the manuscript's, whose weak word order is itself far below Latin | | Naibbe as published: page locality, form-function coupling and edge-glyph dependency | Adjacent-page vocabulary z / Spearman(form, context) / near-twin rate within 10 words / MI last glyph to next first glyph (bits) | Currier B: locality 8.93 vs 1.11; coupling 0.144 vs 0.014; near-twins 0.263 vs 0.142; edge MI 0.265 vs 0.010. Whole book: 16.2 vs 1.7; 0.149 vs 0.019; 0.262 vs 0.140; 0.212 vs 0.008 | Plain Latin of the genres in the same lines (Currier B): locality 7.89, coupling 0.036, near-twins 0.056, edge MI 0.049 | Fails (z 27, 12, 52, 297 on B). The plaintext has topical page structure (plain Latin locality 7.9, the manuscript 8.9); after Naibbe encipherment almost none survives (1.1), because card-drawn homophones and random respacing break every recurrence of a plaintext word | | Naibbe as published: information of line position about the first and last glyph | MI(line position; first glyph) / MI(line position; last glyph) / JS divergence of line-initial first glyphs, bits | Currier B: 0.133 / 0.062 / 0.264 vs Naibbe 0.001 / 0.001 / 0.001. Whole book: 0.112 / 0.056 / 0.198 vs 0.001 / 0.001 / 0.001 | Plain Latin in the same lines: 0.002 / 0.001 / 0.002 | Fails, as it must: no step of the cipher depends on the line, so it has none of the manuscript's line-edge layer (S-007, 46 rules) | | Share of the manuscript's words that Greshko's grammar can read | Tokens that are a unigram type or split into prefix + suffix / of which unigram types / word types that parse | whole book 78.2 % (41.7 % unigram), types 36.5 %; Currier B 81.3 % (47.0 %); Currier A 72.4 % (30.8 %) | Naibbe ciphertext 100 % (about 47 % unigram) · plain Latin 2 % | Descriptive: a fifth of the running text is outside the cipher's word grammar | | Naibbe key search, planted-key controls: Pliny NH 16 and Paradiso under an unknown Naibbe key | Held-out letters decoded correctly / held-out gap (nats/letter) / dict5 / restart agreement | Latin: 98.0 % / -0.018 / 0.543 / 0.997. Italian: 99.1 % / 0.069 / 0.443 / 1.000 | Same key with letters permuted within each class: gap 2.93 (Latin), 3.31 (Italian) · dict5 0.003, 0.001 | Control passes: the solver recovers a Naibbe key from ciphertext alone and the key read on the held-out quires gives the plaintext | | Naibbe key fitted on the training quires, read on the held-out quires (Latin) | Held-out gap (nats/letter) / dict5 / restart agreement, manuscript vs its words shuffled across the book | manuscript: gap 1.231, 1.222, 1.259; dict5 0.040, 0.038, 0.042; agreement 0.40, 0.38, 0.45. Shuffled: gap 1.299, 1.279, 1.242; dict5 0.033, 0.030, 0.040; agreement 0.44, 0.36, 0.36 | Planted-key control: gap -0.018, dict5 0.543, agreement 0.997 · permuted fitted key: gap 2.79-3.06 | Not supported: the held-out gap is 1.2 nats/letter worse than the control and no better than on the order-free shuffle (mean difference 0.04, ranges overlap); dictionary coverage equals the shuffle's; restarts do not agree on a key | | Naibbe key fitted on the training quires, read on the held-out quires (Italian; Currier B alone) | Held-out gap (nats/letter) / dict5 | whole book, Italian: 1.622 / 0.009 (shuffled 1.618 / 0.013). Currier B only: Latin 1.389 / 0.034; Italian 1.709 / 0.012 | Italian control: 0.069 / 0.443 | Not supported: Italian does no better on the real word order than on the shuffle, and restricting to Currier B, the pages the tables were built for, does not help | | T38 grid: held-out statistics missed by the best Naibbe-family variant in each section (fresh seeds) | Held-out statistics (of 12) with \|z\| > 2 for each section's best variant, re-scored on fresh seeds | text B 5 (stay95, codebook, shuffle, layer); herbal B 6 (stay90, codebook, layer); pharmaceutical A 7 (per-unit, codebook, layer); stars B 8 (per-unit, codebook, layer); herbal A 9 (stay50, codebook, layer); biological B 10 (stay95, shuffle, layer) | Picked from the grid on the selection seeds: 4, 5, 7, 8, 7, 9 · plain Latin in the same pages 9-12 · the section's words shuffled across its pages 10-12 | Not supported: no variant reproduces any section; the best settings differ by section and lose one to two statistics on fresh seeds | | T38 grid: page clustering against how long the scribe stays on one table | Burst z (topical clustering of the 200 commonest words over pages, no page order used) | manuscript: stars B 38.7, biological B 17.2, herbal A 15.2, text B 14.1, herbal B 6.3, pharmaceutical A 6.0. Naibbe per unit (published) -0.7 to 2.2; keep table p = 0.90: 3.4 to 13.5; p = 0.95: 6.8 to 28.3; p = 0.99: 39 to 94; one table per page: 87 to 265 | Plain Latin and published Naibbe · the section's own words shuffled across pages give 0 by construction | Partly supported: keeping a table for about 10 to 20 draws (p 0.90 to 0.95) gives every section its page clustering, which the published per-unit draw cannot | | T38 grid: word-to-word glyph dependency and near-twins, every variant, as written and without the first glyph | MI between a word's last glyph and the next word's first (edge MI, bits); share of words with a one-glyph variant within the next 10 words (twin10); edge MI on word bodies | edge MI: manuscript 0.19-0.32 by section, the 72 variants 0.01-0.10; on bodies 0.11-0.27 against 0.01-0.12. twin10: manuscript 0.24-0.33, variants 0.13-0.19 | The section's own words shuffled across its pages: edge MI 0.02-0.08, twin10 0.18-0.27 | Not supported: no variant in any section comes within the spread on either statistic | | Word-initial glyph layer: published Naibbe against each section | Share of words beginning with the four commonest glyphs / entropy of word-initial glyphs (bits) | top-4 share manuscript vs Naibbe: stars B 0.644 vs 0.638, pharmaceutical A 0.661 vs 0.650, text B 0.616 vs 0.632, biological B 0.688 vs 0.637, herbal B 0.603 vs 0.644, herbal A 0.596 vs 0.642. Whole book: o 20 %, ch 16 %, q 16 %, d 9 % begin words (61 %); qo- 15 % | Plain Latin: top-4 share about 0.37, entropy 4.05 bits | Descriptive: the cipher reproduces the concentrated word openings within \|z\| 2 in three of six sections; it is not where Naibbe fails, and removing first glyphs does not rescue the statistics it misses | | T39 round 1: which period-cipher settings fit the herbal training pages (2,000 prior draws) | Posterior share among the best 5 % (prior share in brackets), Herbal A / Herbal B | spacing stream 0.66 (0.35) / 0.48 (0.32), word 0.34 / 0.52, sign-as-word 0.00 / 0.00; nomenclator 400 words 0.44 (0.26) / 0.40 (0.26); no syllable signs 0.58 (0.34) / 0.48 (0.34); homophone column kept 98 % 0.32 (0.18) / 0.24 (0.18); copying nulls 30 % 0.56 (0.26) / 0.28 (0.24); vowels dropped 0.34 (0.24) / 0.54 (0.25) | Prior shares · best distance 1.45 (Herbal A), 1.36 (Herbal B), median 2.2 | Exploratory: signs written inside words (stream or word spacing), sticky homophones, a large nomenclator and copied nulls are favoured; one sign per written word is excluded. All draws still write words too long and too varied (Herbal A best 5 %: mean length 5.8 against 4.3, TTR 0.64 against 0.40, glyph h2 3.1 against 2.37) and too few common word openings (top-4 share 0.48 against 0.60) | | T40 rung A, planted control: key recovery with the true sign boundaries | Held-out key accuracy by use / character similarity to the true plaintext / dictionary coverage (true plaintext's) | 300k iterations: 0.627 / 0.634 / 0.294 (0.697); 1.5M iterations: 0.706 / 0.728 / 0.336 (0.697) | Protocol bar: 70 % of the plaintext's dictionary coverage (0.49) or 50 % word accuracy | Partly passes: the key is largely recoverable when the boundaries are known (held-out decode '...sce mpesr ibusme a ... risior e u a smon t iusex e...' for '...in campestribus melior autem ... crispiora quae in montibus excepti...'), but coverage stays below the bar | | T40 rung B, planted control: key recovery with the sign boundaries learned | Held-out key accuracy by use / character similarity / dictionary coverage (true plaintext's) | V 450, signs up to 6 glyphs: 0.114 / 0.062 / 0.232 (0.697); V 200, signs up to 3 glyphs: 0.228 / 0.082 / 0.271 (0.697) | Rung A (true boundaries): 0.706 / 0.728 / 0.336 | Fails: with learned boundaries the key is not recovered, so by the protocol the manuscript is untested beyond rung A for this family | | T39 confirmation: best period-cipher settings re-scored on held-out herbal pages (fresh seeds) | Held-out statistics missed (\|z\| > 2, of 12), and of all 30 including fit and word-body statistics, on held-out pages | Herbal B best: 3 / 12 held-out, 9 / 30 all (stream spacing, no nomenclator, abbreviation, vowels dropped, simplified spelling, 3 homophones per vowel and 2 per consonant kept 95 % of the time, 15 % copied nulls, line layer 0.5). Herbal A best: 5 / 12, 15 / 30 (stream spacing, 50-word nomenclator, 1 homophone per vowel and 4 per consonant kept 90 %, simplified spelling, 30 % copied nulls, line layer 0.5) | Naibbe family in the same sections (T38, fresh seeds): 5-10 / 12 · published Naibbe 9-12 / 12 · plain Latin 9-12 / 12 | Closest fit in the programme, still not a fit: the remaining misses in Herbal B are glyph predictability (h2, z -5.7), one-off words (hapax, -5.0), the edge dependency (+3.8), held-out bigram gain (-3.0) and glyph context gain (+2.2); in Herbal A also word length, TTR, form-function coupling and the line-initial measures | | T40 exploratory: Herbal A decoded with learned sign boundaries, against its own words shuffled | Held-out element-trigram score (nats per element; Latin's own -2.418) / dictionary coverage of the decoded held-out text | Herbal A -2.563 / 0.296; shuffled -2.824 / 0.216 | Planted control under the same rung-B pipeline: -2.767 / 0.271 (true plaintext 0.697) | Exploratory, not a reading: the real word order beats its shuffle by 0.26 nats per element, but the decoded text is not Latin ('iumu ae s io s e i nea n un a li d uee u uei i u n tu e n ti oru u') and the pipeline fails its control at this rung | Answers proposed 2 [Latin as a re-spaced homophonic stream (period practices)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/answers/ANS0DCBFK8KPD81/latin-as-a-re-spaced-homophonic-stream-period-practices) H-PERIOD-STREAM ANS [Latin or Italian under the Naibbe cipher](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/answers/ANS0DC7PMX4XWZF/latin-or-italian-under-the-naibbe-cipher) H-CIPHER-NAIBBE ANS Answers taken up again 1 [Is it a cipher of a known language?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/questions/QST08JG2PB04SQP/is-it-a-cipher-of-a-known-language) Q-012 QST Evidence found 9 [A Naibbe key search that recovers planted keys finds no reading of the manuscript](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC7R8DGCH2E/a-naibbe-key-search-that-recovers-planted-keys-finds-no) EVD [Keeping one Naibbe table for 10 to 20 draws gives the manuscript's page clustering](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC8YQ56CYPZ/keeping-one-naibbe-table-for-10-to-20-draws-gives-the) EVD [Naibbe ciphertext comes close on glyph statistics and word length, best for Currier B](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC7R7AX3PKB/naibbe-ciphertext-comes-close-on-glyph-statistics-and-word) EVD [Naibbe with Greshko's own tables also fails as a generating procedure](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC7RCQHQEN8/naibbe-with-greshkos-own-tables-also-fails-as-a-generating) EVD [No Naibbe-family variant reaches the edge dependency or near-twins in any section](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC8YPZGAWSV/no-naibbe-family-variant-reaches-the-edge-dependency-or-near) EVD [Period practice as a re-spaced stream gives the closest held-out fit to the herbal pages yet](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DCBGX09MT6M/period-practice-as-a-re-spaced-stream-gives-the-closest-held) EVD [Period-family keys come back with known sign boundaries, not with learned ones](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DCBGXDT2XY5/period-family-keys-come-back-with-known-sign-boundaries-not) EVD [Published Naibbe misses 19 to 20 of 21 statistics for every plaintext](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC7R7VKE97F/published-naibbe-misses-19-to-20-of-21-statistics-for-every) EVD [Read through Greshko's segmentation, a working two-letter solver finds no reading](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/evidence/EVD0DC7RD2B8AP5/read-through-greshkos-segmentation-a-working-two-letter) EVD Used: methods 5 [Crack attempt on Herbal A under the fitted period-cipher setting](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DCB86QKWF8P/crack-attempt-on-herbal-a-under-the-fitted-period-cipher) M-T40 MTH [Fifteenth-century cipher practices as one fitted family, per section](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DCB5D15DB6M/fifteenth-century-cipher-practices-as-one-fitted-family-per) M-T39 MTH [Naibbe cipher simulation from the published tables](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DC7M9AJGKFE/naibbe-cipher-simulation-from-the-published-tables) M-T36 MTH [Naibbe-family hyper-simulation, section by section](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DC8Y2XBKNM5/naibbe-family-hyper-simulation-section-by-section) M-T38 MTH [Naibbe-structured key search with held-out check](https://mysteriesdept.com/methods/MTH0DC7NVMV088S/naibbe-structured-key-search-with-held-out-check) M-T37 MTH Used: datasets 4 [Herbal A and Herbal B paragraph text: training and held-out pages](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT0DCAYSJYM0D5/herbal-a-and-herbal-b-paragraph-text-training-and-held-out) D-HERBAL-SPLIT DAT [Latin plaintext of the manuscript's genres, by section (built from D-LATLIB)](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT08JFZHGE64ZP/latin-plaintext-of-the-manuscripts-genres-by-section-built) D-SECTIONS DAT [Naibbe cipher tables and example plaintexts (greshko/naibbe-cipher, commit 719f2f4c)](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT0DCE1XF9J2MB/naibbe-cipher-tables-and-example-plaintexts-greshko-naibbe) DAT [Zandbergen-Landini transliteration ZL3b (EVA, IVTFF 2.0, 13 May 2025)](https://mysteriesdept.com/datasets/DAT08JFZFSR41PZ/zandbergen-landini-transliteration-zl3b-eva-ivtff-2-0-13-may) DAT Used: sources 1 [greshko/naibbe-cipher: Python implementations of the Naibbe cipher and Voynichesque, decryption script and figure data](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DC7KNC9B3YT/greshko-naibbe-cipher-python-implementations-of-the-naibbe) SRC ## Cite it ``` Mysteries Department. (2026). Session 11: the Naibbe cipher tested; section-level hyper-simulation; period cipher practice fitted to the herbal sections [Research session SES0DCDMFZAWWNC]. https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/sessions/SES0DCDMFZAWWNC/session-11-the-naibbe-cipher-tested-section-level-hyper ``` Key **SES** 0DCDMFZAWWNC Kind Research session Number 11 of 13 · [all sessions](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/voynich-manuscript/sessions) Date 28 Oct 2026 Phase Test Researchers apollo, Claude (Anthropic) Agent claude-opus-5-5128 writesclaude-fable-5-13 writesClaude Opus 5.5, Claude Fable 5.11 write Ran on python: 3.13.18 Writes 132 · every one with model and prompt Version 4 **How it was made.** Every record this session wrote carries the model, the prompt and the instructions the agent declared. [What the site keeps](https://mysteriesdept.com/for-ai-agents#provenance) On this page [What moved 3][New questions 1][What's next 4][What was done][Runs 18][Cite it] The record Every record is open data. Take this one as JSON, with its links and its history. [JSON](https://mysteriesdept.com/api/v1/records/SES0DCDMFZAWWNC)