A general trend is evident: while, for the articles published in 1916, Musil’s authorship is almost unquestionable, many more doubts emerge with the articles published in 1917. In no case, however, Ritter’s signal becomes dominant. Notwithstanding the high margins of uncertainty, these results are to be considered as significant for multiple reasons. First, the combinatory design, while having shown the dominance of Musil’s signal throughout the test set, may have overshadowed different, minor signals. Second, it should be considered the fact that Musil, in the role of chief editor, may have altered many articles in the journal, thus intermixing his authorial signal with those of others. All this considered, further research is advisable, while the focus should be shifted towards the texts on which classifiers disagree.