Your comment persuaded me that just explaining my prompt methodology is insufficient. With Claude's help, I ran some tests against nine different translations

Your comment persuaded me that just explaining my prompt methodology is insufficient. With Claude's help, I ran some tests against nine different translations including Peter Green's line-matched translation, the closest method-matched human control. 36 human-vs-human pairings as controls. Murray (the published translation of the Greek, Loeb source) and Lattimore affinities are genuinely elevated. Fagles is modest but not totally absent. The test can't exclude 4-6-word mosaic composition, and doesn't measure interpretive influence. The longest shared passage in the 12,107 lines is 29 words. Long-fragment assembly is strongly disfavored by synthetic-splice calibration. The translation resembles Green as much as it resembles Murray, or three times as strongly as it resembles Fagles' famous one. That strikes me as being in the opposite direction from what training data-regurgitation would predict. https://theclaudyssey.com/independence.html https://theclaudyssey.com/independence.html Methodological corrections welcomed