Randomized trial demonstrates decoding effectiveness in the Voynich Manuscript, suggesting structural insights.
Computational analysis of the Voynich Manuscript (Beinecke MS 408) under a two-stream decoding model in which each EVA character belongs exclusively to a semantic (SEM, RTL) or structural (STR, LTR) stream. The SEM stream is projected via the OPT9 bijection onto the 9-letter consonantal alphabet Sigma9 = {A,b,h,m,n,p,r,s,y} and evaluated against BDB (Biblical-Aramaic entries), Jastrow, and the ETCBC/dss Qumran Aramaic lexicon (Text-Fabric v1.9, Abegg/Jacobs/Naaijer/Roorda). This deposit accompanies the first-submission manuscript of this work to Cryptologia (v1.3); it is created as an independent Zenodo record with its own concept DOI and carries every phase-level JSON cited in the manuscript. Evidentiary arc: baseline W3 instance rate 41.13% (Phase 61); three-axis control envelope (Phase 63A random, 63B Qumran intra-Semitic partial, 63C-F + 65B/C + 68A cross-lexicon); parametric operator family OPT9-OPT17 with cross-control (Phases 52D/E/F/G) that falsifies the Sigma^3 inflation hypothesis; morphology replicating across six sections with content-congruent asymmetry (Phases 66A/B, 73, 75, 80, 67A, 84, 85, 81, 86, 83); direct cross-stream coupling MI = 1.0975 bits (Phase 71A + Phase 74 by line type); first-order root-pair syntactic dependency MI = 0.1862 bits, z = +17.21 (Phase 87); pre-registered Blegen triple-fail (Phases 64, 72, 91) plus a fourth negative at zodiac-crib level (Phase 82); DictaBERT PLL calibration executed and negative (Phase 64-cal, type-level n=100, model rev dicta-il/dictabert @ 8884c6db002aba4002ee638fe4070c92e9ffbbf1). Reproducibility: pdflatex three-pass deterministic build (SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1745000000, FORCE_SOURCE_DATE=1); the PDF SHA-256 is cited in the cover letter and listed in zenodo_v1_3_manifest.md. No word-level or sentence-level translation is claimed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Javier Gaona-Santamaria (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: