In closing, I would like to add two short remarks regarding the broader significance of these findings for scholarly practices in the digital humanities. First, if we accept provisionally the idea that research in the digital humanities is at least to a significant extent based on the analysis of digital objects ‘at scale’, uniformity of data that makes it possible to compare subsets of data in an instructive manner may often be a more pressing concern than the philological exactitude ( <hi xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" rend="italic">Genauigkeit</hi>) with regard to the individual datum. Not just in the case presented here we may be tempted to value consistency higher than accuracy, so there may be reason to assume that it is precisely the digital humanities that are ‘inexact’ disciplines (for a different point of view see Lauer 2019). Second, if we leave aside the methodological dimension of this contribution, i. e. the role of different criteria for the evaluation of bibliographical metadata as research data, it reports, strictly speaking, a null result: the data made available in French library catalogs are not sufficient for the identification of <hi xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" rend="italic"> praeses</hi> and <hi xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" rend="italic"> respondens</hi> in early modern dissertations. Usually, this would have been a footnote in a data paper that may only have been inserted after the intervention of a reviewer. How the reporting of such results can contribute to the further development of the digital humanities is, however, probably a topic left best for another occasion.