In the Deep Memory catalogue experiment, the three broad motif classes (birds, serpents, sacred centres) are each widespread in the sampled catalogue.

The ledger documents broad frequencies of 55% for bird-person motifs (DEEP-E013) and 37% for cosmic serpents (DEEP-E016), indicating high individual prevalence within the sampled catalogue. However, specific frequency data for sacred centres are absent from the evidence records, leaving that component dependent on contextual inference. The strongest opposing consideration is that the underlying catalogue suffers from substantial regional bias, especially in the ancient Near East, which may artificially distort motif frequencies.

No supporting evidence record exists for the widespread-ness of the three classes; DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 only qualify the catalogue's coverage and category breadth. The quoted page sentence exists only in the claim's sourceAnchor, and the underlying Berezkin & Duvakin-based coding was never retrieved. The claim is plausible as a self-report, but the ledger cannot confirm it.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E016 weakly report substantial frequencies for bird-person and cosmic-serpent classes, but no evidence record reports a sacred-centre frequency or defines the threshold for “widespread.” DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 further qualify coverage and category specificity. The strongest opposing consideration is that the two numerical self-reports partially support the general pattern, but they cannot establish a claim about all three classes.

E018/E019 and the linked frequency reports indicate that the three broad classes are each common in the sampled catalogue. Support remains a self-report with uneven coverage noted by the author. Strongest opposing consideration is that “widespread” for narrative categories does not imply the specific iconographic complexes under discussion are equally common.

The claim follows from the reported 55% and 37% figures plus a sacred-centre class, but those figures are themselves unaudited self-reports (DEEP-E013, DEEP-E016), and the only records attached here, DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019, are the author's own coverage caveats. "Widespread" is also undefined against a threshold. The strongest opposing consideration is that if the coding is broad enough — any bird-person of any kind — near-universality is close to guaranteed by construction, making the finding true but uninformative rather than false.

Two of the three classes have weak self-report records (E013 for bird-person at 55%, E016 for cosmic serpent at 37%); the third, sacred centres, has no figure recorded. The qualifiers E018 and E019 limit coverage and category reach.

Supported by the catalogue experiment data reported in SRC-JHONG-2026, which demonstrates substantial baseline prevalence for bird-person (55% in DEEP-E013) and cosmic-serpent (37% in DEEP-E016) motifs. The finding is provisionally supported as it reflects the author's internal study, while being qualified by documented regional gaps in Near Eastern and Pacific coverage (DEEP-E018). The strongest opposing consideration is that taxonomic bias in Berezkin's folklore index may over-represent certain ubiquitous animal themes due to reporting density.

Indirect support exists for two of the three classes via the frequency results (DEEP-C005, DEEP-C025), but no record attests a frequency for the sacred-centre class, and DEEP-E018/E019 qualify all three with admitted uneven coverage. The strongest opposing consideration is that 'widespread' for a broadly coded class risks being near-tautological: coarse categories are easy to code present almost anywhere.

DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 discuss uneven coverage and category breadth, but no evidence record reports frequencies for all three classes or defines the threshold for “widespread.” The bird-person and cosmic-serpent self-reports bear on two individual classes, while no corresponding sacred-centre result is provided. The strongest opposing consideration is that the reported 55% and 37% figures do make widespread occurrence plausible for two of the three classes.

E018 and E019, together with the frequency reports for the component classes, state that the three broad motifs are each widespread in the sampled catalogue. Uneven coverage is acknowledged, so support stays provisional. The strongest opposing consideration is that “widespread” may be an artefact of the 2016 catalogue’s sampling frame rather than a true global baseline.

The only attached records, DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019, are qualifiers noting uneven coverage and category breadth; the supporting figures come indirectly via DEEP-E013/E016 (55% and 37%), themselves weak self-reports, and nothing in the ledger quantifies the sacred-centre class at all. "Widespread" is also undefined here. Opposing consideration: broad classes like birds and serpents being widespread is antecedently very likely, so the claim is probably true even though this ledger has not shown it.

The support is indirect: DEEP-E013 (bird-person 55%) and DEEP-E016 (cosmic serpent 37%) establish two of the three classes as widespread by the page's own report; no figure is recorded for sacred centres, and no record cites this claim as support. DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 qualify all three. Weakly supported as far as two classes go; the third rests on the page's word alone.

Only qualifying records are attached (DEEP-E018, DEEP-E019). The claim leans, as disclosed, on sibling records: DEEP-E013 (on DEEP-C005) reports the bird class at 55% and DEEP-E016 (on DEEP-C025) the serpent class at 37%; no record gives a figure for sacred centres. Two of three classes evidenced weakly, one not at all.

The widespread occurrence of these motifs is referenced in the site's study descriptions and contextualized by records DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019. These records qualify the finding by emphasizing the unevenness of the 2016 catalogue's regional coverage and the broadness of the motif definitions. Because the ledger contains no primary data extraction confirming the exact distribution metrics across the 926 traditions, the claim rests entirely on the author's unaudited self-report. The strongest opposing consideration is that the underlying catalogue's documentation bias toward heavily studied mythologies may artificially create the appearance of global ubiquity for these specific thematic classes.

While related records document high baseline rates for bird-figures (55%, DEEP-E013) and serpents (37%, DEEP-E016), the ledger lacks an explicit evidence record establishing that sacred centres are similarly widespread or confirming the simultaneous broad distribution of all three classes together. Records DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 qualify the catalog's uneven regional coverage but do not supply the missing quantitative proof. The strongest opposing consideration is that comparative folklore databases consistently confirm that serpents, birds, and sacred world-centres are ubiquitous universal motifs found across nearly every major world region.

While evidence records DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E016 document high frequencies for bird-persons (55%) and cosmic serpents (37%) in the sampled catalogue, the ledger contains no evidence record reporting the baseline frequency or widespread nature of sacred centres. Because the third element of the conjunction is missing from the ledger, the claim cannot be verified in full. The strongest opposing consideration is that the author's narrative explicitly groups all three classes together as ubiquitous background categories in the 926 sampled traditions.

As with DEEP-C057, the only records citing this claim (DEEP-E018, DEEP-E019) qualify the catalogue result — uneven coverage, broad categories not the specific images — without an extracted record establishing the widespread occurrence itself. The strongest opposing consideration is the page's anchor quote, but it is an unaudited self-report with the underlying Berezkin & Duvakin data not in hand.

As with DEEP-C057, the only records attached (DEEP-E018, DEEP-E019) are coverage and scoping caveats, not statements of the result that the three classes are each widespread. The underlying catalogue (Berezkin & Duvakin) and coded data are not in hand, so the claim's truth condition cannot be checked.

As with C057, the only linked records (DEEP-E018, E019) are the author's qualifications about uneven catalogue coverage; no support record reproduces the finding that all three classes are widespread. The truth condition concerns the experiment's coded data, which are not in the ledger. Strongest opposing consideration: the page plainly asserts the result, but assertion by the case's founder is hypothesis material, not evidence.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E016 provide weak self-reported frequencies for the bird-person and cosmic-serpent classes, which is partial support for two components. No evidence record establishes the prevalence of the sacred-centre class, and DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 only qualify coverage and category breadth. The strongest opposing consideration is that the reported 55% and 37% figures make widespread occurrence plausible for two classes, but the three-part claim is not reproduced.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E016 report substantial frequencies for broad bird-person and cosmic-serpent categories, which supports widespreadness for two of the three classes. No evidence record gives the sacred-centre frequency, and all retrieved catalogue results are unaudited self-reports. The strongest opposing consideration is the reported 55% and 37% prevalence, but uneven coverage and the missing third-class result prevent stronger support for the complete three-part claim.

DEEP-E013 reports a 55% bird-person frequency and DEEP-E016 reports a 37% cosmic-serpent frequency, both only as unaudited self-reports. No evidence record supplies a sacred-centre frequency or defines the threshold for calling all three classes widespread. The strongest consideration favoring the claim is that 55% and 37% can reasonably be described as widespread for two classes, but the conjunctive three-class claim remains unverified.

The founder's page asserts that the three broad classes are each widespread; DEEP-E018/E019 merely qualify coverage without denying the frequencies. Because the coded data remain unretrieved, support is weak; the opposing consideration is that "widespread" may be an artefact of the 2016 catalogue's uneven sampling rather than a robust population parameter.

The founder page states that the three broad motif classes (birds, serpents, sacred centres) are each widespread in the sampled catalogue; DEEP-E018/E019 qualify the same result with uneven coverage. Self-report only; coded data not retrieved. Strongest opposing consideration is that "widespread" may simply track the catalogue's documentation density rather than true motif frequency.

The founder's self-report states that the three broad classes are each widespread; the same page immediately qualifies coverage as uneven and categories as broader than the specific images under discussion. Without the coded catalogue the proportion remains unchecked. Strongest opposing consideration is sampling bias toward well-documented traditions that could artificially inflate apparent breadth.

The claim asserts that in the Deep Memory catalogue experiment, the three broad motif classes (birds, serpents, and sacred centres) are each widespread across the sampled traditions. While DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E016 report high individual frequencies for bird-people (55%) and cosmic serpents (37%), no evidence record in the ledger provides the empirical frequency or distribution for sacred centres. With records DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 serving only as qualifying context regarding catalogue bias, the full three-motif claim remains unevidenced in the ledger. The strongest opposing consideration is that the narrative summary in SRC-JHONG-2026 clearly treats all three motifs as widespread background categories in study 02, indicating the missing percentage for sacred centres was documented in the unretrieved project files.

No record directly supports the 'widespread' assertion; the only records naming this claim (DEEP-E018, DEEP-E019) are qualifications, and the supporting frequencies sit on adjacent claims (DEEP-C005, DEEP-C025) with the same self-report weakness. The claim inherits indirect, weak support at best. The strongest opposing consideration is the site's own note that the 2016 catalogue's coverage is uneven, particularly for the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui, which bears directly on 'widespread in the sampled catalogue'.

DEEP-E013 and DEEP-E016 weakly report frequencies for broad bird-person and cosmic-serpent classes, but no evidence record supplies the sacred- centre result or defines the threshold for “widespread.” DEEP-E018 and DEEP-E019 further limit the catalogue's coverage and relevance to specific motifs. The strongest opposing consideration is that the two reported percentages support two components of the conjunction, but they cannot establish all three.

The founder page asserts that the three broad classes (birds, serpents, sacred centres) are each widespread; E018 and E019 supply the author's own caveats on uneven catalogue coverage and the distinction between broad categories and specific images. Support is therefore only the self-report qualified by those limitations. Strongest opposing consideration is the acknowledged undersampling of the ancient Near East and Rapa Nui, which could inflate or deflate the “widespread” characterisation.

The records attached here (DEEP-E018, DEEP-E019) qualify the catalogue, noting uneven coverage and broad categories, without reporting any frequency. Across the ledger, the page's self-reports give 55% for the bird-person class (DEEP-E013) and 37% for the cosmic-serpent class (DEEP-E016), which can fairly be called widespread. No record gives a figure for the sacred-centre class, so 'each of the three' is covered for two classes only, and only by unaudited self-report. The strongest opposing consideration is that 'widespread' is undefined, and on a catalogue whose coverage is admittedly uneven (DEEP-E018) a 37% share may reflect documentation density as much as distribution.

No record attached to this claim reports a frequency; E018 and E019 are coverage caveats. Two of the three classes have self-reported figures elsewhere in the ledger: bird-person 55% (E013) and cosmic serpent 37% (E016). These would count as widespread if the coded data reproduce them. No record gives any figure for sacred centres, and "widespread" is left undefined. The strongest opposing consideration is that everything here is the author's unaudited self-report from a catalogue whose coverage he calls uneven. Even the two figures in hand could move materially with better Near Eastern and Pacific coverage, and the unevidenced third conjunct keeps the claim as a whole only weakly supported.

Adopted from two seats. The only records attached (DEEP-E018, DEEP-E019) qualify the catalogue and do not state the result. Sibling records give 55% for birds (DEEP-E013, on DEEP-C005) and 37% for serpents (DEEP-E016, on DEEP-C025), but no figure exists for sacred centres, so the three-class claim is untested.