A mathematical approach to double words, conditional logic and the missing pages

[Vuk88]

I specifically focused on one of the most famous statistical anomalies: the "double repetitions" (like chol chol). ... These double words aren't isolated or random; they are strictly bound to specific associated words.

That is a very interesting observation! (Even though it is not evidence that the text is not plain language.)  

The legend on this figure says that the frequency of doublets spikes at transtions between sections:

That would be another interesting observation... However, the precise coincidences, the absence of spikes elsewhere,  and the uniform size of the spikes make me suspect that they are artifacts of the way the data is provided or processed.  Are you sure that this is not the case?  

Can you show the actual text around those boundaries where one can see the doublets?

All the best, --stolfi

Dear Professor Stolfi,
First of all, I want to thank you for your work, because if today I can run these algorithms (which were unthinkable until a few years ago) it is thanks to the foresight of your work. Without that fundamental dataset, none of this would be possible.
Your observation is exactly the thought that constantly grips me during testing. To be honest, when I saw the precision of these spikes for the first time, my first thought was: "there must be an artifact or a bug somewhere".
I tried to make the data as clean as possible before feeding it to the algorithm. I took the standard Takahashi file and aggressively stripped it down... I removed the transcription notes you inserted, the uncertain markers like exclamation marks or dashes, and converted dots and commas to spaces. The script isolates (or at least I hope it does) only the pure EVA roots, and the doublet count is a very basic string comparison between adjacent words.
Since you are literally the architect of this interlinear archive and know its formatting secrets better than anyone else, please allow me to ask if you believe there might be edge cases in the transcription markers that my cleaning does not intercept?
On an empirical level, I performed a visual cross-check on the high-resolution facsimile (examining several samples, for example f108r) and the doublets counted by my parser find an exact physical correspondence in the ink written on the parchment... but I am absolutely open to the idea of having overlooked some structural anomaly in the source data of which I am unaware. Therefore, if you have any methodological suggestions or tests to propose to further falsify this result, I would be honored to listen.

P.S. To directly answer your previous request to show the actual text around those boundaries, I have attached a visual document that cross-references the graph spikes with the raw lines extracted directly from your LSI interlinear archive. For each spike, the doublet identified by my script is placed alongside the original transcription line, so you can verify the correspondence at a glance.
Respectfully,
Alfredo