Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[oshfdk]

In their argument T&T implicitly or explicitly assume that Prob(A|not H) is practically zero; that is, they assume that a manuscript that is not a hoax cannot have the "context-dependent repetitions" that they observed -- because they did not observe them in a few other non-hoax books that they analyzed.  Conversely they claim that Prob(A|H) is much higher, because the hypothetical forger may well have generated the VMS using a method, like the SCM,  that accidentally created such repetitions.

And indeed, if Prob(A|H)  is much greater than prob(A|not H), then Bayes's formula gives Prob(H|A) ≈ 1 --- no matter what the prior P(H) is.

However, my Prob(A|not H) is actually quite high.  If the nature of the text is what the illustrations suggest (herbal, pharmacopoeia, list of diseases, etc.), then I do expect that it will have a lot more "context-dependent repetitions" than a novel or chronicle.  

In my full support of this view, I can just repeat what I said before specifically for my area of interest: context-dependent repetitions are very likely when using a one-to-many cipher, they basically work like a cache in software. If, taking a simple one-to-many substitution, encoding "brine" takes five lookups into some coding table, but you just encoded "bring" as qokchdy two lines above, you may want to skip the one to many step and just copy over the "brin" part as it were then add one of the codes for "g" and get qokcheey. But in this scheme the SCM part is an optimization technique and not the generation method. (All examples are made up.)