In the same basin-wide model, almost 80% of Amazonia has a predicted probability of 0–1% for earthwork presence per 1 km² cell, with these low-probability areas concentrated in northwestern, northern, and central Amazonia.

The basin-wide predictive distribution model published by Peripato et al. (2023) in Science determined that nearly 80% of the 6.7 million km² Amazon basin possesses a predicted probability of 0 to 1% for earthwork presence per 1 km² grid cell, with these low-probability zones concentrated heavily in northwestern, northern, and central Amazonia. This statistical model underscores that monumental earthwork construction was a localized cultural adaptation rather than a ubiquitous pan-Amazonian practice. The strongest opposing consideration is that the presence-only modeling relies on environmental covariates that may fail to account for distinct, non-earthen structural forms or heavily forested areas with poor LiDAR coverage.

The finding that almost 80% of the basin carries a 0-1% predicted earthwork probability, concentrated in northwestern, northern, and central Amazonia, is verified from the accepted manuscript. Strongest opposing consideration: this is a presence-only modelled probability surface with acknowledged sampling bias and a modelled observability correction — a prediction, not a measurement of emptiness — and the 2026 LiDAR result shows such models can underpredict severalfold in at least one region, which is why AMZ-R006's blind stratified test is the appropriate resolution.

AMZ-E038 gives the model's basin-wide undiscovered-earthwork total and AMZ-E039 locates nearly all highest-probability cells in a relatively small Acre-centered rectangle. Neither record states that almost 80% of the basin falls in the 0–1% probability class or identifies the claimed northwestern, northern, and central concentration. The strongest opposing consideration is that a small high-probability region does not logically determine the exact area or geography of the lowest-probability class.

Peripato et al. 2023 evidence records in the ledger (AMZ-E038/E039) address basin-wide undiscovered-earthwork totals and the Acre high-probability rectangle, not the claim’s “almost 80% of Amazonia at 0–1% predicted probability per 1 km² cell.” Without an evidence record stating that figure, the claim stays unresolved on this run.

The quoted figure and its geographic concentration in northwestern, northern, and central Amazonia were checked against the accepted manuscript, and the paper's own accompanying caution ("may not have occupied all of Amazonia") is consistent with the claim as stated. It converges with AMZ-C020 and AMZ-E010 on restricted monumental extent. The strongest opposing considerations are that this is a modelled probability surface built from presence-only data with a modelled observability correction, that its own authors' undiscovered-site range (AMZ-E038) sits below the 2026 regional prediction and so cannot be assumed calibrated, and that low earthwork probability is not low occupation probability — non-earth-building societies leave no signal in this model at all.

The claim states a specific proportion — almost 80 percent of Amazonia at 0–1 percent earthwork probability per km² cell, concentrated in the northwest, north and center — attributed to the 2023 basin-wide model. The evidence record intended to anchor it failed verification because the quoted span was not found verbatim in the open-access text, and no other ledger record carries the figure. The source is in the ledger (AMZ-E038, AMZ-E039) and the proportion is plausible given its high-probability rectangle, but plausibility is a prior, not evidence.

Held on its anchor alone: the ‘almost 80 percent at 0–1 percent probability’ passage was declined at intake because the quoted span was not found verbatim, and no evidence record has been admitted. The same source's admitted records (E038, E039) give the undiscovered total and the Acre rectangle, not this figure.

Held on its anchor alone; the evidence records proposed from Peripato et al. for this proposition were refused as not verbatim, so no admitted record carries it.

Held on its anchor alone: the attempted evidence record from Peripato et al. 2023 for the 80% low-probability figure failed verbatim verification and was refused; the admitted records from that source (E038, E039, E040, E041) are attached to C004, C008 and C033, not to this claim.

Peripato et al. (2023) established that nearly 80% of Amazonia has a predicted probability of earthwork occurrence between 0% and 1% per 1 km² cell, with high-probability zones heavily concentrated in a southwestern arc and northern/central/northwestern areas remaining largely devoid of predicted earthworks. Strongest opposing consideration: Earthwork visibility models rely on current deforestation and survey windows that may underestimate concealed features beneath mature canopies in under-surveyed basins.

The Peripato source is verified with the ~80% at 0–1% figure and its spatial concentration verbatim. The strongest opposing consideration: this is a model-predicted probability surface built on presence-only data with modelled observability corrections — it quantifies what the model predicts, not an observed absence of earthworks, and AMZ-R006 is the calibration test that would settle it.

AMZ-E038 supplies a basin-wide undiscovered-earthwork total and AMZ-E039 locates nearly all highest-probability cells in an Acre rectangle, but neither states that almost 80% of the basin has a 0–1% cell probability. The records are compatible with the claim without establishing its central percentage or the full stated regional distribution. The strongest opposing consideration is the model's acknowledged dependence on biased presence-only archaeological data and modeled observability corrections.

Peripato et al. 2023’s accepted manuscript states that almost 80% of the basin has 0–1% predicted earthwork probability per 1 km² cell, with low-probability areas concentrated in northwestern, northern, and central Amazonia. Related evidence rows emphasize competing total predictions and Acre-centered high-probability rectangles (AMZ-E038/E039); presence-only data and modelled observability corrections are the main caveats.

The two Peripato evidence records in the packet (AMZ-E038, AMZ-E039) quote the 10,272–23,648 undiscovered-structure range and the 94,713 km² high-probability rectangle, but not the 80%-of-basin-at-0–1% figure this claim states; that rests on the sourceAnchor alone, with a verified source record. The figure is consistent with the two quoted results, which raises my confidence in its accuracy as a reading of the paper. The deeper caution is that a 0–1% predicted probability from a presence-only model with modelled observability corrections is a statement about the model, not a survey result — which is why AMZ-R006's blind stratified test matters.

Peripato et al. (2023) publish a predictive model indicating that roughly 80% of 1 km² cells across the Amazon basin possess a near-zero (0–1%) probability of harboring pre-Columbian earthworks, with high probability concentrated along the southern and southwestern peripheries. The strongest opposing consideration is that LiDAR surveys continue to find earthworks in areas previously categorized as low-probability due to historic under-surveying beneath dense canopy.

The 0–1% prediction over ~80% of the basin is verbatim-verified from the accepted manuscript, including the authors' own hedge that earth-builders 'may not have occupied all of Amazonia'. The opposing consideration is that this is a model prediction whose calibration has never been ground-truthed — exactly what the proposed blind-stratified LiDAR test AMZ-R006 would measure — and the source has minor internal inconsistencies in its predicted totals.

AMZ-E038 and AMZ-E039 provide contextual results from the same model, including its basin-wide undiscovered-site total and concentration of high-probability cells, but neither states the claimed nearly 80-percent area at 0–1 percent probability. The strongest consideration against an unresolved verdict is that those contextual results are directionally compatible with extensive low-probability areas. Compatibility does not establish the exact proportion or its stated geographic concentration.

No evidence record lists this claimId; Peripato passages appear only as context for C004 (E038/E039) and do not directly underwrite the 80 % / 0–1 % statement as a standalone assessed claim. Absent dedicated support the verdict is unresolved.

No evidence record is attached. The basis is the claim's anchor quotation from the verified accepted manuscript ('Almost 80% of the basin has a 0 to 1% of predicted probability'), with the authors' gloss that earth-builders 'may not have occupied all of Amazonia'. The regional clause (northwestern, northern, central) appears in no quoted passage. The strongest opposing consideration is that the surface is fitted to presence-only data with a modelled observability correction. The several-fold gap between this model's basin total and the 2026 regional estimate (E038, E039) raises calibration questions, and low earthwork probability does not mean low occupation (AMZ-C020).

Held on its source statement in Peripato et al. 2023 (p. 7), with no checked evidence for the 80% figure. The model's checked records (AMZ-E038, AMZ-E039 on C004) give its undiscovered-earthwork range and the Acre rectangle, not this figure. It comes from a presence-only model.