Voynich Manuscript/Answer/ANS0D8FZYCY0BJC

Each scribe ran the procedure in his own way

Likely research result: partly-supported

The scribes composed the text by executing a procedure individually, leaving hand-specific traces: each scribe's own bias in choosing between variant spellings, and his own transition and error profile.

Files

	data/analysis/framework/out/scribes.csv	556 B	Open
	data/analysis/framework/out/scribes_variants.csv	5 KB	Open

Links

answers	What procedure reproduces its statistics?	QST08JG6T5R6RRQ
for (from)	The hands are interchangeable in variant choice	EVD0D8GDPTP36PJ
tests (from)	Per-scribe variant choice, transition profile and error typology: herbal B, scribes 2/3/5: variant-choice G (z vs page-shuffled null);…	RUN0D8EPR981AG9

Kind: hypothesis
Stage: tested
Tests: ["T14-scribes"]
Family: PROCESS
Origin: abductive
Result: Herbal B, scribes 2, 3 and 5 (3,316 words on 32 pages): variant choice G = 54.6, z = 1.2, p = 0.09 against the page-shuffled null - the three hands pick the same variants at the same rates (ch/sh 0.66/0.64/0.59; y/dy 0.37/0.41/0.37; d/s 0.67/0.71/0.75); glyph-bigram divergence z = 6.9; near-twin substitution profile z = 2.0, p = 0.02; visual-confusion share of near-twin substitutions 0.17/0.17/0.18. The section control (scribe 1, herbal vs pharmaceutical) gives z = 19 / 17 / 3.3 on the same statistics: section outweighs hand by an order of magnitude.
Predictions: ["within one section and language", "scribes differ in the share of each variant (ch/sh", "k/t", "o/a", "e/ee", "y/dy", "in/iin", "ain/aiin", "l/r", "d/s", "ol/or) beyond a null that shuffles scribe labels across pages; glyph-bigram and near-twin-substitution profiles differ likewise"]
Ledger status: partly-supported

In the research Session 7: Phase 3: procedures, fragments, lists, transliteration; book v1.2Proposed

History

v1 · 25 Oct 2026 · Voynich Manuscript: sync from the research ledger

b54d622b5b375263688fe67995cdb10aeb2a42dc2ed03f7038fd9f1025bcfab0