{
  "version": "reconciled-tree-30",
  "scope": "Focused Ottoman/Egyptian account-unit review; not a complete census of imperial provinces or pre-Ottoman roots.",
  "summary": {
    "strict_improved_endpoints": 8,
    "including_optional_improved_endpoints": 7,
    "new_observations": 16,
    "relationship_reviews": 1,
    "new_ancestry_edges": 2,
    "new_currency_identities": 2,
    "new_claims": 29,
    "new_source_records": 10
  },
  "completion_checklist": [
    {
      "front": "Serbia",
      "status": "actionable",
      "finding": "One scoped Serbian groš profile, containing two accounting conventions, and two relations proposed; preserves FTM 000374 as continuing Ottoman identity."
    },
    {
      "front": "Syria/Lebanon",
      "status": "existing_supported_edges_checked",
      "edge_ids": [
        "R-V22-043",
        "R-V22-042"
      ],
      "finding": "Current graph already includes Egyptian-account→common Syrian-Lebanese unit→Lebanese separation. Direct Ottoman-to-Syrian shortcut would omit an evidenced intermediate."
    },
    {
      "front": "Palestine",
      "status": "existing_supported_edge_checked",
      "edge_ids": [
        "R-V27-050"
      ],
      "finding": "Existing Egyptian-pound→Palestine-pound edge has 1927 contract conversion scope."
    },
    {
      "front": "Cyprus",
      "status": "existing_supported_edge_checked_earlier_front_open",
      "edge_ids": [
        "R0314"
      ],
      "finding": "Sterling→Cypriot local account branch already exists. Earlier Ottoman-to-sterling local obligations not independently resolved in this bounded pass."
    },
    {
      "front": "Tunis",
      "status": "existing_supported_edge_checked_earlier_front_open",
      "edge_ids": [
        "R-V27-019"
      ],
      "finding": "Piastre→franc 1891 conversion already exists. Earlier Ottoman/regional piastre boundary remains a separate research front."
    },
    {
      "front": "Algeria",
      "status": "prior_front_still_open",
      "finding": "Revision 28 identified earlier French fiscal reckoning and later Algerian account distinction; no newly proven Ottoman-to-French debt-conversion bridge here."
    },
    {
      "front": "Greece",
      "status": "existing_supported_edge_checked_earlier_front_open",
      "edge_ids": [
        "R0307"
      ],
      "finding": "Phoenix→drachma already supported; prephoenix Ottoman local accounting remains unreviewed here."
    },
    {
      "front": "Egyptian para/medin, piastre and pound",
      "status": "account-continuity reviewed",
      "finding": "Documentary-account scholarship connects the scales within one local identity. The earlier 1524 witness is separately reviewed; reconstructed seventeenth-century dates remain qualified."
    },
    {
      "front": "Ottoman kuruş/lira and the Republic",
      "status": "1833 onward supported; earlier grouping qualified",
      "finding": "The 1833 regional source identifies Ottoman kuruş accounting. A retained account structure and statutory replacement of Ottoman paper support continuity through the Republic. Earlier akçe observations remain visible with their individual association limits."
    },
    {
      "front": "Sultani intermediate",
      "status": "proposed serial ancestry rejected",
      "finding": "Gold-denominated debts establish an independent scoped account, concurrent with other Ottoman accounts. They do not establish universal akçe-to-sultani-to-kuruş succession."
    },
    {
      "front": "Overall completion",
      "status": "focused pass completed; regional and early boundaries remain open",
      "finding": "The proposed Egyptian/Ottoman chain is adjudicated. The atlas does not claim a complete census of every Ottoman province, contractual currency or pre-Ottoman predecessor."
    }
  ],
  "held": [
    {
      "target": "Egyptianpiastre→Ottomankuruş parent",
      "decision": "no_new_ancestry_edge",
      "assertion": "Egypt retained medin account usage through the Ottoman period; Cairo and Istanbul had exchange-linked local currencies. Parallel depreciation and later standard separation do not demonstrate Egyptian-account replacement by Istanbul’s unit.",
      "sources": [
        "S557"
      ],
      "locator": "pp.95–97,172–178, especially177",
      "next_research": "A specific adoption or liability-conversion episode would be needed to establish a different parent."
    },
    {
      "target": "Ottomankuruş→sultani→akçe sequence",
      "decision": "reject_as_serial_currency_succession",
      "assertion": "The sultani was a gold coin with a variable akçe exchange rate; akçe remained the Ottoman account measure. Coin coexistence supplies no intervening sultani account succession.",
      "sources": [
        "S906"
      ],
      "locator": "pp.5–7, section2",
      "scope": "Other agent may adjudicate Ottoman akçe/kuruş identity; this bundle supplies no new Ottoman edge."
    },
    {
      "target": "Mamlukmedin→OttomanEgyptianmedin",
      "decision": "same_identity_pre1517_extension_held_for_dated_account_witness",
      "assertion": "Pamuk explicitly describes preconquest medin as surviving in accounts when coins disappeared, followed by Ottoman continuation. This supports earlier local continuity, but this pass found no precisely dated pre 1517 debt or fiscal-account witness.",
      "sources": [
        "S557"
      ],
      "locator": "pp.95–96",
      "implementation": "Do not use1415firstcoin minting as a firm account-origin date. Preserve early-fifteenth-century candidate separately from1524firm account restoration."
    },
    {
      "target": "1834versus1836reform date",
      "decision": "preserve_separate_milestones",
      "assertion": "Alleaume identifies the 14 April 1836 decree and tariff, whereas broader monetary histories use 1834 for reform. Neither coin-standard milestone alone defines the account identity’s birth.",
      "sources": [
        "S613"
      ],
      "locator": "pp.210–212 and notes13–16"
    },
    {
      "target": "90-para riyal/purse separate nodes",
      "decision": "no_new_nodes",
      "assertion": "These are explicit account multiples within Egyptian reckoning; their existence does not establish separate independent currencies.",
      "sources": [
        "CUNO"
      ],
      "locator": "Appendix2 p.211"
    },
    {
      "target": "1524source boundary",
      "decision": "supported_original_scholarship_not_original_statute_inspection",
      "assertion": "Schiffman explicitly says the medin was restored as Egypt’s unit of account in 1524; his historical section draws on Pamuk/Shaw/Winter. This is stronger than coin weights alone, but the kanunname itself was not inspected.",
      "sources": [
        "S906"
      ],
      "locator": "Section2 p.6"
    },
    {
      "subject": "Earlier than1431–1432akçe accounting anchor",
      "decision": "not_established_this_pass",
      "reason": "1326 coin issue is not used as an account anchor. Searches for fourteenth-century vakfiyes mostly returned later register valuations or retrospective translations. No securely dated earlier obligation passage was inspected; do not backdate from institution foundation."
    },
    {
      "subject": "Universal akçe→sultani→kuruş replacement chain",
      "decision": "reject_as_proposed",
      "reason": "Contemporary functions overlap. A separately evidenced Levantinegold account unit may be valid, but is not automatically the principal core predecessor.",
      "sources": [
        "O30-PAMUK"
      ],
      "locator": "pp66–71"
    },
    {
      "subject": "1916law original wording and provincialcustomarypiastres",
      "decision": "limited",
      "reason": "Monograph inspected, statutory original not obtained. Do not use 100:1 to erase distinct provincial currency scopes or infer that all gold/paper obligations were interchangeable duringWWI."
    },
    {
      "subject": "Upgrade entire1432→1844corecontinuity",
      "decision": "keep_qualified",
      "reason": "Retainedakçe later fiscal obligations and 120:1 subdivision give a strong continuity case, but the 1690 s/early 1700 s generic-kuruş identity is explicitly ambiguous in original research. This pass does not justify a blanket upgrade of every early anchor.1830 s/1844 lira definition is a stronger separately supported scope."
    },
    {
      "frontier": "akçe → sultani",
      "decision": "not_established; do not add ancestry edge",
      "missing_record": "A dated law, contractual conversion, or linked ledger showing akçe-denominated obligations transferred into the independent sultani account. Gold minting and exchange quotations cannot supply this relationship."
    },
    {
      "frontier": "sultani → kuruş",
      "decision": "not_established; do not add ancestry edge",
      "missing_record": "A dated settlement or conversion rule carrying sultani principal into kuruş obligations as a currency succession, rather than ordinary exchange between concurrent accounts."
    },
    {
      "frontier": "earliest sultani account before 1583",
      "decision": "open; no 1477 foundation date assigned",
      "missing_record": "A precisely dated earlier loan, rent, tax valuation or ledger explicitly denominated in sultanis, with enough context to distinguish account obligations from a coin inventory."
    },
    {
      "frontier": "sultani → later Ottoman gold types",
      "decision": "coin succession is insufficient",
      "assertion": "Schiffman reports later gold issues replacing sultani/sherifi coin production in 1697–1728. This does not settle whether the gold-account unit ended or continued under new instruments.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-SCHIFFMAN"
      ],
      "locator": "Author manuscript p. 8",
      "missing_record": "Treatment of pre-existing sultani-denominated obligations under the later gold issues."
    },
    {
      "frontier": "Venetian ducat → sultani account",
      "decision": "coin model alone cannot establish account ancestry",
      "missing_record": "A local obligation or accounting rule adopting or converting the Venetian ducat account as the sultani unit; metrological imitation alone is insufficient."
    },
    {
      "frontier": "gold linkage of silver debt",
      "decision": "do not misclassify indexation as unit replacement",
      "assertion": "Castro’s debt-valuation doctrine links some silver obligations to gold after debasement; it does not abolish their silver denomination.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-SCHIFFMAN"
      ],
      "locator": "Author manuscript pp. 14–15, discussion of Erech lechem on Yoreh deah 165",
      "missing_record": "Evidence of actual denomination succession rather than a gold-value adjustment formula."
    },
    {
      "subject": "CUR-V30-LEVANT-SULTANI",
      "decision": "admit_scoped_account_identity",
      "assertion": "The admitted evidence measures obligations and heterogeneous expenditures beyond counting gold coins.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-ALSABAGH"
      ],
      "locator": "Printed pp. 195–197 and 312–315",
      "status": "supported"
    },
    {
      "subject": "FTM000374",
      "decision": "preserve_existing_account_history_without_sultani_intermediate",
      "assertion": "The v 29 Turkish-lira profile already includes qualified akçe, para and kuruş continuity. The new gold-account evidence does not overturn that assessment.",
      "basis": "Baseline tree-model.json and currency-profiles.json read; C1282, C1757–C1759."
    },
    {
      "subject": "gold_silver_distinction",
      "decision": "do_not_treat_an_exchange_rate_as_ancestry",
      "assertion": "Schiffman distinguishes akçe accounting and fluctuating akçe/sultani exchange. Later kuruş reckoning is described as 120 akçe / 40 medin, not as replacement of all sultani debts.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-SCHIFFMAN"
      ],
      "locator": "Author manuscript pp. 5–7",
      "status": "supported"
    },
    {
      "subject": "first_issue_1477_1478",
      "decision": "coin_context_only",
      "assertion": "Princeton dates the first sultani issue to 1477 and cites Pamuk. The undated Geniza receipt does not establish an account-unit founding then.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-PRINCETON"
      ],
      "locator": "Opening paragraph and note 1; account lines 1–3",
      "status": "supported"
    },
    {
      "subject": "supplied_google_book",
      "decision": "correct_bibliographic_identification",
      "assertion": "C 1 Ej 4 VEPwSgC identifies Paolo Malanima’s Pre-Modern European Economy (Brill, 2009), rather than Şevket Pamuk’s monetary history.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-MALANIMA"
      ],
      "locator": "Title and bibliographic information",
      "status": "supported"
    },
    {
      "id": "BR30-DATE",
      "status": "date_qualification",
      "assertion": "Use 1878–1879 range for law versus implementation; do not treat first coin issue as currency-account birthday."
    },
    {
      "id": "BR30-COMPLETENESS",
      "status": "bounded_pass_complete",
      "assertion": "This closes the strongest discovered Serbian omission; it is not an exhaustive audit of Ottoman provinces or proof that all regional branches are complete."
    },
    {
      "id": "BR30-BOUNDARY",
      "status": "identity_adjudication",
      "assertion": "Author calls these two accounting units, but fixed 2:1 subdivision fits project scale rule.1878 conversion difference alone does not establish independent currency variation. Local Serbian versus continuing Ottoman boundary relies on separately regulated fiscal/commercial use, not merely the new scale."
    },
    {
      "code": "FTM000374",
      "candidate": "1385 wage anchor",
      "decision": "do_not_backdate1400_supplement",
      "assertion": "The 1385 deed leaves salary determination to the trustee; fixed akçe stipends inspected occur in the 1400 addition.",
      "sources": [
        "OT30-GOK"
      ],
      "locator": "pp221–222"
    },
    {
      "code": "FTM000374",
      "candidate": "1360 Orhan waqf",
      "decision": "no_akce_anchor",
      "assertion": "Inspected deed description allocates property and fractional produce revenue rather than a specified akçe debt or wage. This does not prove absence of early akçe accounting.",
      "sources": [
        "OT30-ORHAN"
      ]
    },
    {
      "code": "FTM000374",
      "candidate": "Seljuk or Ilkhanid predecessor",
      "decision": "no_ancestry_edge",
      "assertion": "Coin circulation, designs and borrowed mint weight do not identify the prior account unit or its conversion into akçe. Need a local early contract, fiscal order or paired account specifying adoption/conversion.",
      "sources": [
        "OT30-PAMUK"
      ],
      "locator": "pp30–33"
    },
    {
      "code": "FTM000374",
      "candidate": "Byzantine aspron predecessor",
      "decision": "no_ancestry_edge",
      "assertion": "Pamuk presents possible similarity to Byzantine silver weights as requiring further research. Neither that nor shared white-money terminology proves unit succession.",
      "sources": [
        "OT30-PAMUK"
      ],
      "locator": "p32 and note34"
    },
    {
      "code": "FTM000374",
      "candidate": "Arabic dirhem terminology",
      "decision": "no_generic_dirham_parent",
      "assertion": "Arabic legal use of dirhem for current Ottoman silver money is contextual terminology; it cannot independently identify a Seljuk, Ilkhanid or classical Islamic parent.",
      "sources": [
        "OT30-DIRHEM"
      ]
    },
    {
      "code": "FTM000374",
      "decision": "preserve existing full-profile continuity qualifications",
      "assertion": "Supported 1400 local wage observation does not automatically upgrade every intervening akçe-to-modern continuity claim; do not mark akçe de novo merely because predecessor remains unresolved.",
      "sources": [
        "OT30-GOK"
      ]
    },
    {
      "subject": "User-supplied Malanima book",
      "decision": "bibliography identified; substantive page not inspected",
      "reason": "The supplied ID identifies Paolo Malanima, Pre-Modern European Economy (2009). The catalogue is accessible, but the relevant page preview was unavailable. It is retained as a lead and does not support a new ancestry claim.",
      "sources": [
        "SUL30-MALANIMA"
      ]
    },
    {
      "subject": "Yildirim 2007 court-register study",
      "decision": "access-limited lead",
      "reason": "L’introduction d’une nouvelle monnaie dans l’empire ottoman au XVIIe siècle d’après les registres de justice, DOI 10.4000/ress.220, was identified. The publisher returned a bot-check page and ResearchGate lacked full text. No unseen passage is used to strengthen a relationship.",
      "url": "https://journals.openedition.org/ress/220"
    }
  ],
  "new_currency_ids": [
    "CUR-V30-LEVANT-SULTANI",
    "CUR-V30-SERBIAN-GROS-ACCOUNT"
  ],
  "new_relationship_ids": [
    "R-V30-001",
    "R-V30-002"
  ],
  "source_id_map": {
    "S557": "S557",
    "S558": "S558",
    "S613": "S613",
    "S906": "S906",
    "CUNO": "S978",
    "O30-PAMUK": "S557",
    "O30-LAW1925": "S555",
    "O30-CBRT": "S556",
    "O30-COURTS": "S907",
    "O30-AKCE": "S637",
    "O30-ISPENCE": "S908",
    "O30-KURUS": "S979",
    "SUL30-ALSABAGH": "S980",
    "SUL30-SCHIFFMAN": "S906",
    "SUL30-COURTS": "S907",
    "SUL30-PRINCETON": "S981",
    "SUL30-MALANIMA": "S982",
    "BR30-SERBIA": "S983",
    "OT30-GOK": "S984",
    "OT30-ALTUN": "S985",
    "OT30-ORHAN": "S986",
    "OT30-PAMUK": "S557",
    "OT30-DIRHEM": "S987"
  }
}