The andesite sample (PP1) on which the 2019 organic-matter finding rests was selected by appearance from loose fragments lying outside the protected monument area at Pumapunku, not sampled from an identified architectural block.

The authors' own published methodological report explicitly confirms that andesite sample PP1 was selected from loose, scattered debris lying outside the protected monument area based solely on visual flat-surface characteristics. There is no documented excavation provenance, inventory number, or architectural refit linking fragment PP1 to an in-situ monument block. The strongest opposing consideration is the authors' assertion that the debris exhibited flat surface finishes characteristic of monumental worked blocks.

The proponents' own account states verbatim that the samples are "outside the protected monument area" and were chosen by surface appearance from loose debris (GEO-E057), making this an admission rather than an opponent's characterization. The strongest opposing consideration is that loose fragments could still derive from architectural blocks — no refit was ever attempted (GEO-R016) — so the claim's implication for the monument is attribution, not observation.

GEO-E057 quotes the analysts' own account that PP1 was selected from loose debris outside the protected monument area based on its apparently monumental flat surface. It also states that the sampled material was a fragment lying on the ground rather than an identified catalogued block. The strongest opposing consideration is that being outside the protected area does not prove the fragment was unrelated to the monument.

The authors’ own fuller account states that numerous andesite fragments lie outside the protected monument area and that PP1 was carefully chosen from that debris by flat-surface appearance, not sampled from an identified architectural block with an object number or refit. Strongest opposing consideration is that exterior debris can still be monumental spall; that possibility is acknowledged but does not change the sampling fact as stated.

The proponents' own 2019 text states that the andesite fragments lie scattered and abandoned outside the protected monument area and that samples were obtained by carefully choosing debris with the characteristic flat surface, with PP1 A/B taken from the fresh broken part of a fragment lying on the ground. This is a direct quotation from the party with every incentive to describe provenance favourably, which makes it about as secure as ledger evidence gets. The only caveat is scope: "outside the protected area" and selection by appearance do not by themselves prove the fragment is not from an architectural block — they establish that the attribution is undocumented, which is what the claim says.

The analysts' own account (GEO-E057) states that numerous andesite fragments lie outside the protected monument area and that PP1 A and B came from the fresh broken part of a fragment on the ground, chosen by its characteristically flat surface. The peer-reviewed statement of the same context was not shown, but this is the authors' fuller description of their own sampling and there is nothing in the ledger against it.

No evidence record is attached to this claim itself. The disclosed basis is GEO-E057, attached to the parent claim GEO-C004. It records the authors' own statement that PP1 was chosen by its flat surface from debris outside the protected monument area. The peer-reviewed version of that statement has not been read, so support is provisional. The admission runs against the authors' interest, which raises its credibility.

The proponents' own text states the fragments lie outside the protected monument area and were chosen by appearance, and the quoted passage was verified against the source. The only counterweight is that being a loose surface find does not logically exclude derivation from an architectural block, but the claim only asserts how the sample was selected, which is exactly what the source says.

GEO-E057 directly quotes the authors saying that the fragments lay outside the protected monument area and were selected from debris by visually characteristic flat surfaces. The record identifies PP1 as a ground fragment rather than a sample removed from a catalogued block. The strongest opposing consideration is that loose placement does not prove the fragment was unrelated to the monument.

The 2019 source itself states that the andesite fragments, including PP1, lie outside the protected monument area and were chosen by flat-surface appearance from scattered debris (GEO-E057). No contrary evidence appears. Strongest opposing consideration is none; the sampling description is unambiguous.

The analysts' own account states that the andesite fragments "are outside the protected monument area" and that samples were obtained by choosing debris with the characteristic flat surface. It records that PP1 A and B came from the fresh break of a fragment on the ground, with no object number, excavation context or refit (GEO-E057). A sampler's own description of how they sampled is the best available evidence on the point, and the interior finding (GEO-C918) is on PP1. Strongest opposing consideration: the peer-reviewed Ceramics International description was not read and could add context, and lying outside the protected area does not exclude an architectural origin — but the claim says only that no identified block was sampled, which the record supports.

Held on its anchor in SRC-DAVIDOVITS-2019, with no evidence record attached to it directly. Its provisional support comes from GEO-E057, attached to the parent claim GEO-C004, which records the authors' own statement that PP1 was chosen from loose debris outside the protected area. The peer-reviewed Ceramics International account of sampling has not been read.