The institutional consequence of ProHist-Bench is not the benchmark itself but the evaluative infrastructure it anchors [1]. Once a domain-specific benchmark achieves sufficient citation mass, it becomes the default test — not because it is comprehensive but because it is available. The Keju system's centrality to ProHist-Bench is a specific editorial choice that privileges textual, examination-based reasoning over the methodological plurality that defines the discipline. Historians working with material culture, oral testimony, or colonial archives are not represented in that frame, and the benchmark will not be revised to include…