{
  "reviewer": "GPT-6 Astra, neutral textual review, 2026-09-21",
  "blindness": "Not blinded. Scores were masked during close reading, but the reviewer had already seen the extraction and knew the thesis and aggregate. Independent reasoning is not independent human replication.",
  "hypotheses": "For this diagnostic index only: H_M = modern TJ construction or materially revised adaptation using Matthew; H_T = Matthew edited an earlier TJ-like text, with the compared TJ sufficiently preserving that source. Other hypotheses are discussed separately; neither binary hypothesis is equated with all conceivable hoax or authenticity claims.",
  "rubric": "0.50 = the observation does not distinguish the two directions on the presented evidence; 0.45 = a modest, locally motivated TJ-source advantage; 0.60 or 0.65 = modest evidence of modern revision that compromises use of the current wording as an independent witness. Values are transparent judgments, not empirically calibrated frequencies. No theological statement is scored merely because it is orthodox, heterodox, supernatural, or unfamiliar. An attractive explanation is not sufficient: a plausible reverse-direction account is evaluated as well.",
  "interval_rule": "For sensitivity only, take p plus or minus 0.05, clipped to [0.01,0.99]. These are judgment intervals, not statistical confidence or credible intervals; their endpoints are jointly varied adversarially.",
  "scores": [
    {"unit_id":"mt1:1","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"The opening formula is ambiguous in scope and has an admitted Genesis analogue. TJ supplies a different heading and cosmology, but length and originality do not date them. Either source abbreviation or later expansion remains easy to describe."},
    {"unit_id":"mt2:1-2","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"TJ gives explicit travel motivation and a message-bearing light. This explains the plot more fully; adding such motivation to Matthew is also a straightforward narrative expansion. No demonstrated inability of a modern author to supply it is presented."},
    {"unit_id":"mt3:1","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"The Jordan-bank wording is more precise. Matthew's wilderness can include the Jordan region, as the cited criticism acknowledges. Geographic clarification does not establish which wording came first."},
    {"unit_id":"mt4:1-11","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"The two forty-day accounts have different narrative purposes. Mythic imagery in one and a more elaborate instructional story in the other establish neither temporal priority nor historical truth. The claim that a modern writer could scarcely compose fifty verses lacks a tested basis."},
    {"unit_id":"mt5:3","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"Poor in spirit has several interpretations acknowledged on the page. Treating it as simply a defective psychological state does not rule those readings out. The rich/poor reversal fits either a doctrinal adaptation or a proposed ancient theological edit; edition changes further limit lexical direction arguments."},
    {"unit_id":"mt6:1","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"Matthew warns against acting in order to be seen. That does not entail avoiding every helpful act someone might notice. TJ's emphasis on accurate speech is clear but does not solve a demonstrated contradiction or identify the direction of borrowing."},
    {"unit_id":"mt7:1","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"Adding falsely makes the injunction explicitly qualified. A modern adapter could make this familiar clarification without unusual scholarship. The reverse change is also imaginable; neither is given a distinctive chronological marker."},
    {"unit_id":"mt8:4","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"Certification by a priest and avoidance of public publicity need not be contradictory; the page acknowledges that the Greek recipient is ambiguous. TJ's retained priest instruction also limits secrecy. The difference can be read in either direction."},
    {"unit_id":"mt9:2-3","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"The accusation follows a claim to forgive sins; it need not await a successful healing to be understood as an objection to claimed authority. TJ makes an alternative cause explicit, but this alone does not establish that Matthew lacks a conceivable cause."},
    {"unit_id":"mt10:5-6","p":0.45,"observation":"supported tension","rationale":"The restriction of mission and subsequent Gentile testimony create a real contextual tension, and the TJ reading supplies a coherent local account. This is a modest directional clue. Changing audiences, persecution under Gentile rulers within Israel, or later harmonization remain plausible; the shared Mt10:18 item is counted once."},
    {"unit_id":"mt11:2-3","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"TJ clarifies the expected title and aligns the question with its own teaching. John's uncertainty and his disciples' inquiry can also work narratively in Matthew; a narrator's use of Christ does not require every character to use that title. No unique directional constraint results."},
    {"unit_id":"mt12:6-8","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"Scriptural quotation and redaction are plausible observations. They establish literary composition more readily than they identify TJ as its source; omission or replacement of the quotation by a modern doctrinal adapter is equally available."},
    {"unit_id":"mt13:1","p":0.5,"observation":"supported seam","rationale":"The house transition is worth investigating, but TJ's wording also leaves an unspecified departure and the page admits its same-day geography is difficult. The broader house seam has a published Mark-based account, so its existence does not uniquely select TJ."},
    {"unit_id":"mt14:1-4a","p":0.45,"observation":"supported tension","rationale":"TJ's anticipatory beheading and explicit flashback provide a connected chronology. The multiple linked changes give a modest source-text advantage on internal coherence, while a modern author could also clarify the flashback and its endpoint. No dating inference is made from coherence alone."},
    {"unit_id":"mt15:1-4","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"The discussion moves from hand washing to a countercharge and back. This can be a deliberate argumentative response rather than an error. TJ removes the hand-washing thread consistently, which is compatible with either an earlier source or later thematic adaptation."},
    {"unit_id":"mt16:1","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"Asking Jesus for a sign from heaven can naturally mean asking him to demonstrate heavenly authorization. It need not mean asking him to point out an unrelated rainbow. The proposed defect is insufficient to distinguish direction."},
    {"unit_id":"mt17:1-9","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"The passage contains scriptural patterns and narrative questions. Its absence from TJ is genuine in the displayed comparison, but omission is compatible with an ancient source and with a modern writer's selection. No prior probability of retaining this scene is established."},
    {"unit_id":"mt18:1","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"TJ's opening allows an indefinite interval. Matthew's formula may also be a loose narrative transition. This translation-sensitive difference supplies no robust asymmetry without language and manuscript controls."},
    {"unit_id":"mt19:3-5","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"The Genesis allusion is visible. Assuming that a wisdom teacher could not use a creation tradition is a premise about his beliefs, not an independently demonstrated textual error. TJ's changed framing does not settle direction."},
    {"unit_id":"mt20:1-16","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"A deliberately surprising parable can contrast fairness, generosity, and rewards. Failure to match one definition of wisdom does not show it was impossible for Jesus to tell it. Absence from TJ has no quantified discriminatory value here."},
    {"unit_id":"mt21:2-3","p":0.45,"observation":"supported explanatory gain","rationale":"The ownership and custody explanation gives the donkey retrieval a concrete mechanism that Matthew leaves implicit. Related naming changes fit a coherent source-editing account, receiving modest weight; a modern author could also supply this naturalistic explanation."},
    {"unit_id":"mt22:1-14","p":0.5,"observation":"supported tension","rationale":"The meal, punitive expedition, and many/few ending warrant literary analysis. But a text omitting the whole episode avoids its difficulties automatically. The missing measure is how often an adapter would omit this kind of episode, so no directional numerical advantage is assigned."},
    {"unit_id":"mt23:1-2","p":0.5,"observation":"contested","rationale":"Moses' seat is a title for teaching authority, as the page itself explains. A title need not list every prophetic source. TJ's broader label fits its viewpoint but is not evidence that the Matthean title is logically defective."},
    {"unit_id":"mt24:3-4","p":0.5,"observation":"supported tension","rationale":"The question about a coming not yet understood and the delayed answer are reasonable literary questions. TJ clarifies both while placing events two millennia later. Without a dated stable witness or a discriminating forecast test, neither clarification nor long-range prophecy identifies literary priority."},
    {"unit_id":"mt25:46","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"This score represents the whole chapter's three omitted pericopes. Scholarly redaction arguments deserve attention, but an entire omitted chapter constitutes one selection event in the conservative review. Its absence cannot itself tell whether TJ preceded or selectively adapted Matthew."},
    {"unit_id":"mt26:1-2","p":0.45,"observation":"supported explanatory gain","rationale":"The comparison of five discourse endings and a changed speaker transition is concrete and testable. TJ gives the last transition a distinct narrative function and an explicit disciple reaction, modestly supporting a source-editing account. Stylistic regularization and modern expansion remain viable; its overlap with the Judas argument must be grouped."},
    {"unit_id":"mt27:1-12","p":0.45,"observation":"supported seam with contested subclaims","rationale":"TJ gives the trial and suicide sequence a continuous local chronology, addressing several location and transition issues together. That merits modest weight. Several subsidiary objections assume all ordinary actions must be narrated, or that saw cannot mean realized; these are weaker. A modern repair can generate coherence too, and eleven criticisms are not eleven independent events."},
    {"unit_id":"mt28:1","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"TJ makes the timing and identities explicit. Ambiguity in Greek-to-English phrasing and harmonization of the two Marys can arise at more than one transmission stage. The preceding grouped Mary discussion does not supply a dated independent witness."},
    {"unit_id":"mt2:9","p":0.5,"observation":"supported physical observation","rationale":"An ordinary distant star cannot identify a particular building, and a nearby directed light could. This distinguishes descriptions, not their dates: a modern UFO interpretation readily makes the same change. A special supernatural sign is also not excluded by Matthew's narrative merely because it is called a star."},
    {"unit_id":"mt5:28-tj12","p":0.65,"observation":"documented revision in source account","rationale":"The page reports that the punishment wording was changed following an objection brought to Meier in 2002. This modestly favors a material modern-revision explanation over treating the currently preferred reading as an independent unchanged ancient witness. It does not prove the whole TJ modern or make a translation-error explanation impossible."},
    {"unit_id":"mt13:47-48","p":0.5,"observation":"partly supported","rationale":"The consciousness interpretation is coherent, but substituting a governing metaphor can systematically reinterpret an existing set of parables. The claim that a modern author could scarcely devise it is unsupported, and the individual net passage supplies no chronological asymmetry."},
    {"unit_id":"mt14:9","p":0.5,"observation":"supported tension","rationale":"Herod's earlier wish to kill and later grief create an identifiable narrative tension. TJ resolves it with pleasure and prearranged collusion, but a lexical reversal plus added motive is also a simple repair. Mark supplies another coherent source account. No decision is forced by this comparison alone."},
    {"unit_id":"mt15:13-17","p":0.45,"observation":"supported tension","rationale":"The apparent mismatch between Peter's request and the reply is a concrete referent problem, and TJ's explicit plants/blind-men request fits its immediately preceding speech. Give modest weight to this linked coherence; the broader sense of parable, topic resumption, and deliberate repair remain alternatives."},
    {"unit_id":"mt19:13-15","p":0.45,"observation":"supported omission with translation caveat","rationale":"Prayer is requested but not explicitly narrated, while TJ gives the speech and blessing a complete sequence. This is a weak source-editing clue, since prayer could also be implicit in laying on hands. The second alleged problem is expressly traced to an English translation and is not counted as evidence against the underlying Matthew."},
    {"unit_id":"mt21:7","p":0.6,"observation":"documented revision in source account","rationale":"The page reports that the 1978 TJ shared the ambiguity and that later editing removed it. The present solution therefore cannot function as unchanged preexisting corroboration of the criticism. This modestly favors modern adaptation of this reading; correction of an earlier translation remains possible, and the Greek garments interpretation also remains open."},
    {"unit_id":"mt26:14-16","p":0.5,"observation":"mixed, includes an apparent factual error","rationale":"The substituted betrayer creates a coherent alternative and explains the later all-disciples phrase, but that coherence follows from one large narrative choice. The argument also calls Bethany a twenty-mile walk from Jerusalem, conflicting with the approximately two-mile Bethany of John 11:18 unless another location is demonstrated. This removes one stated improbability; the surviving conjectures do not establish direction."}
  ]
}