GERSHA v9.2 — Functional Model of the Voynich Manuscript with External Control and Structural Analogues
I've been working on a corpus-based structural analysis of the Voynich manuscript for the past year. Before posting I want to be clear about what this is and what it isn't.
What this is not: a decipherment. I make no claims about the language, the author, or the meaning of individual tokens.
What this is: a reproducible functional model of the manuscript's architecture, verified on the full ZL v3b corpus (202 folios, 35,049 tokens), with an external control corpus and a decoded structural analogue.
The core claim (Level 1 — fully reproducible):
The manuscript is structured as a production cycle + influence calendar. The {P}-formant { -edy | -eedy | -ody | -eody } behaves as a process marker: it rises sharply in Balneo (23.2%), falls in Pharma (7.7%), and correlates with figures acting as agents of active processes rather than catalogue markers.
Three findings are confirmed, one was refuted and corrected in v9.2:
— Balneo TTR 0.424–0.475 vs Macer Floridus baseline 0.715+ (structural chasm, confirmed independently of counting method)
— Production chain H→B→P confirmed on full corpus
— Zandbergen cross-references H↔P: +14.4 pp -ol on 8/8 paired roots
— {P}≈0% for Astro was refuted: Astro {P}=10.3%, TTR=0.744. Corrected in v9.2.
External control: Linear B (DAMOS)
The second document uses Linear B tablets from DAMOS (University of Oslo) as a decoded structural reference. Seven tablets across six series reveal a six-type document typology based on a single key finding: to-so marks a closed, totaled list regardless of series. Its absence is functional, not accidental.
This resolves a structural question about both Indus Script Type B inscriptions and the Voynich Zodiac section — both now have deciphered analogues in Linear B Series V (divine register, presence markers rather than quantities).
Voynich Balneo does not fit the accounting family (TTR 0.65–0.85, fixed positional architecture). It fits nothing in our Linear B sample. The process/instructional interpretation remains the only model consistent with all three comparisons simultaneously.
Known limitations (honest):
— HMM transition matrix built on f75r/f78r only — full ZL v3b verification pending
— Geometric binding of {P} to illustrations not confirmed via line-position metric (r = −0.076)
— All cross-system parallels are Level 2 (structural hypotheses, not semantic claims)
— Everything depends on EVA as a correct morphological boundary
Documents attached:
— GERSHA Protocol v9.2 (full corpus analysis, tables, verification status)
— GERSHA Comparative Framework v1.0 (Linear B structural control, 7 tablets, 6-type typology)
I'm genuinely interested in criticism of the method — particularly the EVA dependency and the Astro reclassification. Happy to share raw numbers.
Grisha H.G. | February 2026
I've been working on a corpus-based structural analysis of the Voynich manuscript for the past year. Before posting I want to be clear about what this is and what it isn't.
What this is not: a decipherment. I make no claims about the language, the author, or the meaning of individual tokens.
What this is: a reproducible functional model of the manuscript's architecture, verified on the full ZL v3b corpus (202 folios, 35,049 tokens), with an external control corpus and a decoded structural analogue.
The core claim (Level 1 — fully reproducible):
The manuscript is structured as a production cycle + influence calendar. The {P}-formant { -edy | -eedy | -ody | -eody } behaves as a process marker: it rises sharply in Balneo (23.2%), falls in Pharma (7.7%), and correlates with figures acting as agents of active processes rather than catalogue markers.
Three findings are confirmed, one was refuted and corrected in v9.2:
— Balneo TTR 0.424–0.475 vs Macer Floridus baseline 0.715+ (structural chasm, confirmed independently of counting method)
— Production chain H→B→P confirmed on full corpus
— Zandbergen cross-references H↔P: +14.4 pp -ol on 8/8 paired roots
— {P}≈0% for Astro was refuted: Astro {P}=10.3%, TTR=0.744. Corrected in v9.2.
External control: Linear B (DAMOS)
The second document uses Linear B tablets from DAMOS (University of Oslo) as a decoded structural reference. Seven tablets across six series reveal a six-type document typology based on a single key finding: to-so marks a closed, totaled list regardless of series. Its absence is functional, not accidental.
This resolves a structural question about both Indus Script Type B inscriptions and the Voynich Zodiac section — both now have deciphered analogues in Linear B Series V (divine register, presence markers rather than quantities).
Voynich Balneo does not fit the accounting family (TTR 0.65–0.85, fixed positional architecture). It fits nothing in our Linear B sample. The process/instructional interpretation remains the only model consistent with all three comparisons simultaneously.
Known limitations (honest):
— HMM transition matrix built on f75r/f78r only — full ZL v3b verification pending
— Geometric binding of {P} to illustrations not confirmed via line-position metric (r = −0.076)
— All cross-system parallels are Level 2 (structural hypotheses, not semantic claims)
— Everything depends on EVA as a correct morphological boundary
Documents attached:
— GERSHA Protocol v9.2 (full corpus analysis, tables, verification status)
— GERSHA Comparative Framework v1.0 (Linear B structural control, 7 tablets, 6-type typology)
I'm genuinely interested in criticism of the method — particularly the EVA dependency and the Astro reclassification. Happy to share raw numbers.
Grisha H.G. | February 2026
