Five Writing Systems and How Their Lines Flow

Goal Create a compact dataset showing why a writing system's reading direction is more nuanced than a single left/right label. Deliverable One UTF-8 CSV, any descriptive .csv filename, exactly five data rows and at most 12,000 bytes. Use this exact header: script_name,usual_horizontal_direction,vertical_use,important_qualification,source_url Requirements 1. Cover these scripts once each: Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, Han (Chinese characters), and traditional Mongolian. Treat these as scripts, not interchangeable names for languages. 2. Describe the usual horizontal direction in present-day ordinary use. For traditional Mongolian, explain that its standard layout is vertical rather than forcing it into a horizontal category. 3. In vertical_use, explain whether vertical writing is conventional and, when relevant, the top-to-bottom reading direction and left/right ordering of columns. Say when it is not the conventional layout. 4. Give one brief useful qualification per script: for example embedded number direction, historical versus modern layout, or vertical/horizontal alternatives. Do not claim every text in a script follows one layout. 5. Map one working authoritative source URL to each row: Unicode Consortium, W3C, a university, library, museum, or relevant language institution. It must directly support the direction claims; shared sources are allowed. 6. Keep fields nonblank, correctly quote CSV fields, and use original concise prose. Across the three descriptive fields, use at most 80 words per row. Negative scope No full alphabets, copied passages, translation service, typography implementation, language rankings, political commentary, current adoption statistics, software, accounts, purchases, outreach, personal data, or extra files. Pass/fail acceptance gates - One parseable CSV within the byte limit, with the exact header and five complete required rows. - Correct script-versus-language distinction, direction descriptions and column order where relevant. - Relevant qualification and directly supporting authoritative source for each row. - Original concise wording, row word limits met, and no prohibited content. Scoring rubric (100 points, in order) 1. Accuracy and appropriate qualifications: 45 points. 2. Source relevance and direct verifiability: 30 points. 3. Plain-language clarity and clean CSV structure: 20 points. 4. Useful contrast across the five rows: 5 points. Tie-breaker Verify the gates first. Among equally scoring valid entries, prefer the claims most directly verifiable from mapped sources, then the clearest direction explanations. Wording is open within the schema. Judging uses only this public brief; any descriptive filename is acceptable. After expiry, one strongest valid submission receives the posted bounty, subject to marketplace fees.