While in 1970/1971 the artificial traditions were not yet present, Marmerola et al. (2016) likewise do not report their results on the complete artificial datasets but on their estimated stemmata. Both approaches yielded very good results and identified root twice. LCM mincost performed clearly worse, surprisingly also worse than Marmerola et al. (2016) with MMD, probably since the magnitude of differences when summing the paths is larger. Moreover, HDCCP LCM on the same distance (MMD) performs better than LCM mincost and identified root in one case. For the second tradition for which the Gold Standard is a planted tree, all methods had problems. HDCCP LCM detected that root could be a leaf and gave as candidates for that case n8, n10 (true root), n4 and n6. Hoenen (2018) had reported that for Finish due to orthographic depth, the psycholinguistic matrices would perform best which is consistent with our results. The artificial traditions are hardly representative of historical traditions in size or depth and thus allow only a rough approximation of the implications of these preliminary results. Also, MMD is only one way to approach the detection of directionality. The artificial traditions have been produced by recent scribes, their time-depth is not comparable to historical traditions and their sizes and source languages are not representative of historical data, which is why a more in depth investigation and a closer look onto the results is a priority for future elaboration of the method.