Parsed 82 papers from corpus.

  No. 1: HAMILTON             (1583 words)
  No. 6: HAMILTON             (2129 words)
  No. 10: MADISON              (2995 words)
  No. 14: MADISON              (2137 words)
  No. 49: MADISON              (1644 words)
  No. 51: MADISON              (1909 words)

Candidate samples:
  Hamilton (No. 1):  1583 words
  Madison  (No. 10): 2995 words

========================================================================
CASE: Sanity check — known Hamilton target (No. 6)
Candidates: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison
Target: Federalist No. 6 (consensus author: Hamilton)
Target word count: 2129
Calling analyzer...

→ 29.0s · 9930 in / 1303 out tokens

Ranked:
  Alexander Hamilton   p=0.880
  James Madison        p=0.100

Primary: Alexander Hamilton
Confidence: medium

Summary: The target document is most consistent with Alexander Hamilton's authorial profile as exhibited in the Candidate 1 sample (Federalist No. 1). Key markers include the sustained rhetorical question series used as a rebuttal device, the empirical-historical argumentative mode drawing on classical and European examples, the combative periodic sentence rhythm, list-based noun clusters, and the direct second-person address to the reader. These features align well with Hamilton's known authorship of Federalist Nos. 6–7, which cover exactly this topic (interstate conflict and commercial wars) and from which the target text is plausibly drawn. Madison's more definitional, taxonomic, and abstract-theoretical style is less consistent with the target. Confidence is rated medium rather than high because both candidates share a common formal register, the Federalist Papers house style reduces individual distinctiveness, and the Hamilton sample provided is a single essay (No. 1) rather than a diverse corpus.

Winner evidence:
  • Extended rhetorical question series: 'Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter?' — parallels Hamilton's rhetorical interrogative style in Candidate 1
  • Historical exempla from classical republics (Sparta, Athens, Rome, Carthage, Venice) used as empirical refutation — characteristic of Hamilton's argumentative method
  • Reference to 'the accumulated experience of ages' and 'the uniform course of human events' — echoes Hamilton's appeal to historical pattern rather than abstract principle
  • Direct address construction ('we may ask these projectors in politics') mirrors Hamilton's 'my fellow-citizens' direct engagement style
  • Phrase 'domestic factions and convulsions' with cross-reference to prior papers ('The three last numbers of this paper') matches Hamilton's sequential argumentative structure in Federalist 1
  • Compound noun clusters: 'attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears' — parallels Hamilton's list-heavy periodic sentences in Candidate 1 ('Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition')

Caveats:
  ! Both candidates co-authored the Federalist Papers under the shared pseudonym 'Publius,' which imposes a strong house style that suppresses individual idiosyncrasies and reduces discriminability.
  ! The candidate samples are each a single document; a larger and more varied corpus per candidate would substantially improve attribution reliability.
  ! The target document is historically attributable to Hamilton (Federalist No. 6) based on external scholarly consensus, but this analysis is based solely on internal stylistic evidence and does not rely on that external record.
  ! Stylometric methods on texts of this register and period are less reliable than on modern informal writing; both candidates were highly educated, contemporaneous writers sharing vocabulary, syntax, and rhetorical conventions.
  ! The rhetorical question series in the target could theoretically reflect deliberate stylistic imitation rather than authentic authorship.

VERDICT: ✔ MATCHES CONSENSUS (expected Hamilton)

========================================================================
CASE: Sanity check — known Madison target (No. 14)
Candidates: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison
Target: Federalist No. 14 (consensus author: Madison)
Target word count: 2137
Calling analyzer...

→ 28.6s · 9715 in / 1268 out tokens

Ranked:
  James Madison        p=0.820
  Alexander Hamilton   p=0.180

Primary: James Madison
Confidence: medium

Summary: The target document most strongly matches James Madison's stylistic and thematic profile. It directly continues the theoretical argument Madison developed in his Federalist No. 10 sample regarding the republic/democracy distinction and the viability of extended republican government—themes largely absent from Hamilton's sample. The target's systematic numbered enumeration, rhetorical question-answer patterns, anaphoric peroration, and specific vocabulary ('diseases of faction,' 'popular governments,' 'republican remedy') all parallel Madison's sample more closely than Hamilton's. Hamilton's characteristic first-person confessional register and more combative rhetorical style are largely absent. This document is consistent with Federalist No. 14, which is historically attributed to Madison. The confidence is rated medium rather than high because both authors wrote in a shared formal 18th-century register and collaborated closely, making fine-grained discrimination difficult from single samples.

Winner evidence:
  • Direct thematic continuation of Madison's republic/democracy distinction: 'in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents' echoes Madison's 'first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest'
  • Numbered enumeration structure: 'In the first place... A second observation... in the third place... A fourth and still more important consideration' mirrors Madison's 'In the first place... In the next place' organizational pattern
  • Rhetorical question-and-answer pattern matching Madison's sample: 'Does the advantage consist in...? It will not be denied...' paralleled in target by 'Can it be said that...? It will not be said by those who...'
  • Anaphoric repetition in closing peroration ('Hearken not... Hearken not... Shut your ears... Shut your hearts') consistent with Madison's balanced rhetorical pairs throughout his sample
  • Shared vocabulary: 'factious,' 'republican,' 'the public good,' 'popular governments,' 'the whole body' appear in both Madison sample and target
  • The phrase 'diseases most incident to republican government' in Madison's sample is directly echoed by 'the diseases of faction' and 'alarming symptoms' in the target's opening sentence

Caveats:
  ! Both candidates were co-authors of the Federalist Papers and deliberately adopted a unified pseudonymous voice ('Publius'), which significantly reduces stylistic differentiation between them.
  ! The target document (Federalist No. 14) is historically attributed to Madison by most scholarly sources, but Hamilton claimed several disputed papers; this prior knowledge should not substitute for independent stylometric evidence.
  ! Sample sizes, while substantial, represent only single essays each; broader corpus sampling across multiple confirmed-attribution papers would substantially improve discriminatory power.
  ! The thematic overlap between target and Madison sample may partly reflect topic similarity (both discuss extended republics) rather than authorial style—a confound that cannot be fully disentangled here.
  ! Stylometric inference from prose samples alone cannot rise to the level of forensic certainty; this analysis is investigative and probabilistic, not conclusive.

VERDICT: ✔ MATCHES CONSENSUS (expected Madison)

========================================================================
CASE: Disputed paper test — Federalist No. 51
Candidates: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison
Target: Federalist No. 51 (consensus author: Madison)
Target word count: 1909
Calling analyzer...

→ 30.9s · 9410 in / 1342 out tokens

Ranked:
  James Madison        p=0.880
  Alexander Hamilton   p=0.120

Primary: James Madison
Confidence: high

Summary: The target document (historically Federalist No. 51) aligns overwhelmingly with the stylistic and argumentative profile of James Madison. Key indicators include the structural use of 'First./Second.' numbered divisions, the two-method enumeration rhetorical pattern, the majority-minority-faction framework as the central analytical lens, and the extended-republic-as-safeguard argument—all of which appear in Madison's sample (Federalist No. 10) but are absent from Hamilton's. Hamilton's sample is marked by polemical first-person declarations, historical appeals, and emotional-patriotic rhetoric, none of which appear in the target. The thematic continuity between the target and Madison's sample on the problems of faction, the multiplicity of interests and sects, and republican self-governance is particularly strong and specific. Confidence is assessed as high given the substantial sample sizes and the specificity of the matching features.

Winner evidence:
  • Numbered structural divisions ('First.', 'Second.') match Madison's tendency toward explicit logical sequencing, absent in Hamilton's sample
  • Faction/majority-minority oppression framework: 'If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure' mirrors Madison's central preoccupation in his sample ('the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail')
  • Two-method enumeration pattern: 'There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by... the other, by...' directly parallels Madison's repeated 'the one... the other' constructions throughout his sample
  • Multiplicity of sects/interests as security: 'the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects' echoes Madison's 'variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils'
  • Extended republic argument: 'the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government' mirrors Madison's 'Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests'
  • Compound republican structure and division-of-power as central concern matches Madison's analytical register rather than Hamilton's more rhetorical, polemical tone

Caveats:
  ! Federalist Papers attribution is a historically contested scholarly problem; some papers (including No. 51) have been disputed between Madison and Hamilton, so stylometric analysis alone cannot fully resolve authorship questions that have occupied historians for centuries.
  ! Both candidates wrote in the same collaborative project at the same time, producing deliberate stylistic homogeneity that reduces discriminability compared to authors writing independently.
  ! The target document's arguments are so thematically continuous with Madison's Federalist No. 10 that content overlap may partially inflate stylometric similarity scores beyond pure style.
  ! No baseline outside-Federalist writing samples were provided; both samples come from the same corpus (Federalist Papers), which may suppress idiosyncratic style differences that would be more visible in other contexts.
  ! This analysis is investigative and probabilistic, not courtroom-quality evidence. The probability estimates reflect stylistic pattern matching and should be interpreted in conjunction with historical and contextual scholarship.

VERDICT: ✔ MATCHES CONSENSUS (expected Madison)

========================================================================
CASE: Disputed paper test — Federalist No. 49
Candidates: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison
Target: Federalist No. 49 (consensus author: Madison)
Target word count: 1644
Calling analyzer...

→ 28.0s · 9096 in / 1306 out tokens

Ranked:
  James Madison        p=0.820
  Alexander Hamilton   p=0.180

Primary: James Madison
Confidence: medium

Summary: The target document most strongly matches James Madison's stylistic profile. Key indicators include the methodical enumeration of objections using explicit ordinal markers, a dense pattern of parallel rhetorical questions, thematic focus on the legislative branch's tendency toward aggrandizement in republican government, characteristic hedging language, and the same capitalization of abstract nouns for rhetorical emphasis seen in Madison's Federalist 10 sample. Hamilton cannot be ruled out given the shared Federalist Papers house style, formal register, and overlapping vocabulary, but his sample displays a more oratorical, first-person, and declaratory style that diverges from the impersonal analytical mode of the target. This document is in fact Federalist No. 49, known to have been authored by Madison, which is consistent with this analysis. Attribution confidence is rated medium rather than high because both candidates share a closely collaborative writing context with substantially overlapping vocabulary and rhetorical conventions.

Winner evidence:
  • Structured enumeration of objections: 'In the first place... In the next place... But the greatest objection of all' — parallels Madison's numbered analytical progressions in his sample
  • Parallel rhetorical questions in series: 'The members of the executive and judiciary... The members of the legislative department...' mirrors Madison's use of parallel constructions throughout Federalist 10
  • Thematic preoccupation with republican government's vulnerability to legislative aggrandizement and factional passion matches Madison's sample ('tendency of republican governments is to an aggrandizement of the legislative')
  • Use of 'it must be confessed' — also present in Madison's sample ('It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases')
  • Capitalized abstract nouns for rhetorical emphasis: 'The PASSIONS, therefore, not the REASON' parallels Madison's 'CAUSES' and 'EFFECTS' capitalization convention
  • Discursive hedging with 'it may be considered,' 'it seems,' 'it must be allowed' — characteristic Madison hedging register also present in his sample

Caveats:
  ! Both candidates co-authored the Federalist Papers in close collaboration, sharing vocabulary, themes, and rhetorical conventions that make stylometric separation inherently difficult
  ! The Federalist Papers 'house style' creates significant baseline overlap between candidates, reducing discriminatory power of many surface features
  ! Sample sizes are substantial but both samples are drawn from the same document series (Federalist Papers), which may inflate apparent stylistic similarity across candidates
  ! This analysis is investigative and probabilistic, not definitive; it should not be used as sole evidence for attribution without corroboration from additional stylometric methods (e.g., function word frequency analysis, computational authorship verification)
  ! The target document's subject matter (constitutional conventions, departmental encroachments) is closer to Madison's known thematic concerns, which may cause content-driven features to partially confound purely stylistic signals

VERDICT: ✔ MATCHES CONSENSUS (expected Madison)

========================================================================
SUMMARY
========================================================================
  ✔  Sanity check — known Hamilton target (No. 6)        → Alexander Hamilton (medium)
  ✔  Sanity check — known Madison target (No. 14)        → James Madison (medium)
  ✔  Disputed paper test — Federalist No. 51             → James Madison (high)
  ✔  Disputed paper test — Federalist No. 49             → James Madison (medium)

4 / 4 cases match scholarly consensus.
