In the Deep Memory catalogue experiment, a broad bird-person motif class occurs in 55% of 926 sampled traditions. True if the experiment's coded data reproduce that proportion.

Evidence records DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 directly confirm that the Deep Memory catalogue experiment reports the broad bird-person motif class in 55% of 926 sampled traditions. The claim asks specifically whether the experiment's coded data produce that figure, which the source statements corroborate. The strongest opposing consideration is that this represents an unaudited self-report from an unverified website whose raw data files have not been independently retrieved or validated.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 report the 55% figure as the site's own result, and DEEP-E018 notes the founder's own caveat about uneven coverage, particularly for the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui. A second reader disputes that DEEP-E015 supports the claim at all, reading it as a scope limitation. The support is weak self-report only: the coded data that would reproduce the proportion are not in hand.

DEEP-E013 directly states the 55% frequency among 926 sampled traditions, and DEEP-E014 repeats its interpretation as a baseline. Both are dependent self-reports from the same source, while DEEP-E015 is only a scope limitation and does not verify the number. The strongest opposing consideration is the absence of coded data or a reproducible calculation, compounded by the reported uneven catalogue coverage.

E013–E015 state the 55 % figure for the broad bird-person class; E018/E019 qualify coverage. All are author self-reports of an unaudited coding exercise. Strongest opposing consideration is that the second-reader note on E015 correctly flags that some quoted sentences address interpretive scope rather than the numeric proportion itself, and the raw catalogue remains unexamined.

The claim's own truth condition is that the coded data reproduce 55% of 926 traditions, and the coded data have not been retrieved; DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 merely restate the page's assertion, while the second reader correctly notes DEEP-E015 is a scope caveat rather than support. DEEP-E018 records the author's admission that the 2016 catalogue's coverage is uneven, particularly for the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui — the very regions the case cares about. The strongest opposing consideration is that a self-reported descriptive count from a public dataset is cheap to check and unlikely to be fabricated, so the figure is probably roughly right; but "probably roughly right" is not verification, and category-boundary choices could move it substantially.

Weak self-report records E013 and E014 state the 55% of 926 figure; E015's direction is disputed by its second reader as a scope limitation rather than support. E018 and E019 qualify: uneven coverage, and broad classes are not the specific images.

Supported by DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014, which cite the 55% frequency across 926 sampled traditions from the Deep Memory catalogue experiment. Support is provisional because the underlying coding records and Berezkin dataset have not been independently retrieved or verified, and the author explicitly notes uneven geographic coverage (DEEP-E018). The strongest opposing consideration is that an excessively broad definition of 'bird-person' combines completely unrelated concepts into an artificial statistical majority.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 support the 55% figure only as the site's self-report; the underlying Berezkin & Duvakin catalogue and the method page are not in hand, and DEEP-E018 records the author's own admission of uneven coverage for the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui. The strongest opposing consideration is that a recoding on the actual catalogue data could move this proportion substantially, since the class is broad and the sampling uneven.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 directly self-report that 55% of 926 sampled traditions received the broad bird-person classification. DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018, and DEEP-E019 limit interpretation through category breadth and uneven coverage, while the coded catalogue needed to reproduce the arithmetic is absent. The strongest opposing consideration is that the two direct reports agree exactly on both numerator context and percentage, although they are not independent sources.

E013 and E014 quote the 55 % figure; E015, E018 and E019 immediately qualify it as a broad-class baseline with uneven coverage and no pose-level resolution. Pure self-report without data or methods yields only weak support. The strongest opposing consideration is that a cleaned or expanded catalogue could shift the proportion substantially.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 state the 55%-of-926 figure but are self-reports of an unaudited experiment whose coded data and method page were not retrieved, and the claim's truth condition is precisely that the coded data reproduce the proportion. DEEP-E015 and DEEP-E018/E019 qualify the figure's reach without denying it. The strongest opposing consideration is definitional: a "broad bird-person class" liberally coded could yield almost any high figure, so the number is only as meaningful as unretrieved coding rules.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 record the page's report of the figure (55% of 926 sampled traditions) and its use as a baseline; DEEP-E015 qualifies that the figure says nothing about pose, object and arrangement together; DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 qualify coverage and class breadth. Self-report of an unaudited coding of the Berezkin–Duvakin catalogue; data and method not retrieved.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 record the page's statement of the 55% figure; DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 qualify its reach. All weak self-reports; the coded data and the underlying catalogue are not in hand.

The 55% frequency is explicitly cited by the author in DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 as establishing a baseline for broad bird-person motifs. However, DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018, and DEEP-E019 emphasize that this broad category does not track specific poses or artifact bundles, and notes severe regional coverage gaps in the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui. Because the underlying Berezkin & Duvakin database and the author's analysis scripts were not retrieved or audited, the empirical truth condition remains only weakly supported by unaudited secondary self-reporting. The strongest opposing consideration is that the primary dataset may contain coding inconsistencies or sampling imbalances that, upon independent replication, would fail to reproduce the reported 55% proportion.

Records DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 directly support the claim, documenting the founder's catalog experiment finding of broad bird-person motifs in 55% of 926 sampled traditions to establish a baseline. However, DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018, and DEEP-E019 qualify this by noting that the category is defined very broadly, does not measure specific poses or contexts, and relies on a catalog with known uneven regional coverage. The strongest opposing consideration is that an unaudited self-report based on overly broad category definitions cannot establish an authoritative baseline frequency for specific iconographic bird-man imagery.

Evidence records DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 document the author's self-reported finding that a broad bird-person motif class appears in 55% of 926 sampled traditions, while DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018, and DEEP-E019 emphasize substantial limitations regarding uneven catalogue coverage. The support is weak because it relies strictly on an unaudited self-report from an unverified website rather than independent replication or primary data inspection. The strongest opposing consideration is that the exact numeric parameters (55% across 926 traditions) are clearly articulated in the source and directly meet the stated truth condition.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 weakly support the 55% figure as the page's statement of its own result; DEEP-E015 (per its second reader) properly scopes rather than supports it, and DEEP-E018 flags uneven catalogue coverage including the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui. The strongest opposing consideration is that the coded data were never retrieved, so the proportion is unverifiable from this packet.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 quote the site's own 55%-of-926 figure, but both are weak self-reports of an unaudited experiment whose method and data were not retrieved; DEEP-E015 and DEEP-E018/E019 qualify coverage and scope. The strongest opposing consideration is that the page itself flags uneven catalogue coverage, so the proportion may not survive independent recoding.

DEEP-E013 and E014 weakly support the 55% figure as a self-report of the site's own experiment; the underlying Berezkin & Duvakin catalogue and the method page are not in hand, and the author's own records flag uneven coverage including the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui. The strongest opposing consideration is the second reader's point on E015 that the quoted passages scope rather than verify the proportion, so the support is thinner than the record count suggests.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 directly report a 55% frequency among 926 sampled traditions. Both derive from the same unaudited founder report, while DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 document uneven coverage and broad categories. The strongest opposing consideration is that neither the coding data nor the denominator construction was retrieved, so the proportion cannot be independently reproduced.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 report that 55% of 926 sampled traditions were coded into the broad bird-person class. The catalogue, code, and method were not retrieved, while DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 identify uneven coverage and a gap between broad categories and specific images. The strongest opposing consideration is that the two records state the exact numerator-independent proportion and sample size, but they derive from the same unaudited self-report rather than a reproduction.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 directly report that the experiment found the broad bird-person class in 55% of 926 sampled traditions. The records are duplicate aspects of one founder self-report, and neither the catalogue, coding procedure, nor reproducible computation is available; DEEP-E018 also notes uneven coverage. The strongest opposing consideration is that the claim's truth condition requires the coded data to reproduce the percentage, which the supplied evidence does not permit an assessor to check.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 restate the 55 % figure from the author's own unaudited experiment; DEEP-E015 and DEEP-E018 correctly limit its interpretive reach. Without the underlying Berezkin–Duvakin coding or method page the numeric claim cannot be verified; the strongest opposing consideration is precisely the catalogue's acknowledged uneven coverage for the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 record the founder's statement that the broad bird-person class occurs in 55 % of 926 sampled traditions; DEEP-E015 and E018 qualify reach and coverage. Unaffected data and method page absent. Strongest opposing consideration is that the figure is a self-report of an unaudited coding exercise on a catalogue already flagged for uneven coverage, especially for the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui.

Three self-report fragments give the 55 % figure and immediately limit its scope (it does not speak to pose/object/arrangement co-occurrence; coverage is uneven). No primary catalogue extract or method audit is present. Strongest opposing consideration is that an unaudited coding pass on a known uneven corpus can produce almost any baseline.

Evidence records DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 confirm that the founder's catalogue experiment reports finding a broad bird-person motif class in 55% of 926 sampled traditions. However, the support is weak because the claim is verified only as an authorial self-report from an unverified, unreviewed web source, with the underlying Berezkin and Duvakin catalogue dataset unretrieved. Furthermore, DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018, and DEEP-E019 emphasize that this broad category fails to capture specific poses or compositions and suffers from severe regional sampling bias. The strongest opposing consideration is that the exact 55% figure is explicitly stated in the text and derives from a recognized, published comparative folklore database.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 report the 55%-of-926 figure, but only as the page's statement of its own unaudited experiment; the Berezkin & Duvakin catalogue and the method page are not in hand. The second reader correctly flagged that DEEP-E015 is a scoping caveat, not support. The strongest opposing consideration is that the coded data have never been produced, so the claim's own truth condition ('if the coded data reproduce that proportion') is unchecked.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 report the exact 55% result and the sample size of 926 traditions. The underlying catalogue coding and analysis were not retrieved, so the numerical claim cannot be reproduced. The strongest opposing consideration is the combination of unaudited self-report and acknowledged uneven catalogue coverage.

E013 and E014 quote the page's statement that the broad bird-person class occurs in 55 percent of 926 sampled traditions; E015 and E018/E019 add the author's own scope limitations. The numeric claim is therefore supported solely as an unaudited self-report. Strongest opposing consideration is that the underlying catalogue coding, method page and raw counts have not been retrieved, leaving open the possibility of category inflation or sampling bias.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 quote the page's figure, the broad bird-person class in 55% of 926 sampled traditions, and that is the whole of the support. The coded data and method are not in hand, so the truth condition, reproduction from the coded data, is untested. DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 are the author's scope caveats (nothing on co-occurring pose, object and arrangement; uneven coverage; broad categories), which limit what the figure means without denying it. The strongest opposing consideration is that a class this broad, coded on an unevenly covered catalogue, makes the proportion sensitive to coding decisions no one outside the project has checked. Locally the figure is probably an accurate report of the analysis; for the featured hypothesis it is non-diagnostic, for the reason given under DEEP-C026.

The only support is the founder's statement of his own result (E013, with E014 split from the same passage: one self-report, not two). Neither the coded data nor the method is in hand, so the truth condition, reproduction from the coded data, is untested. Nothing contradicts the figure, and a plain frequency with a stated denominator (926) is the kind of report least likely to be misstated. The qualifiers (E015, E018, E019) do not dispute the number but bound it: broad narrative categories, uneven coverage, and no information on co-occurring poses or objects. The strongest opposing consideration is that the boundary of a broad "bird-person" class is a coding choice. Another coder might not reproduce the proportion even from the same catalogue.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E014 give the 55% of 926 figure as the page's own result; DEEP-E015, DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 qualify it (composites untested, uneven coverage, broad classes). A self-report with data not in hand.