Why we might be wrong

We propose an analysis of field data from a real-world setting that will either provide the first validation of graphic-based semiotic transmission experiments. Or if not, our study will reveal that these experiments have less explanatory power than their authors have presumed.
If nothing is found, not all cultural items will change when they go through a transmission chain. This would speak to the trade off between set and the item. `permancy = resistance to change? clay impressions. 
Egyptian standardised, vai more language like. We remove the common sources of inertia, there is no institutional pressure, and yet maybe we still see this resistance to becoming more compressed. If it doesn't change we can't say it's beduse of institutional pressure (unless we don't know what the institutions are) 
Is the system already close to optimally compressed when it is first gneerated, eg, from semasiography? We should find that early versus late items in both dataset and experiments, are equally reproducible.