I didn't really structure any data, I'm just making polysillogism by the definition of them "a sequence of
syllogisms such that the conclusion of each syllogism, together with the next proposition, is a premise for the next, and so on".
There are certain rules, one is that for the polysillogism to make any sense the major premise of the next one has to be of the same quantifier of the conclusion of the previous one.
To make things more interesting I have to complete the algo with the fact that the probability of picking an incorrect syllogism in any point of the chain is distributed exponentially over the length of the syllogism. This is because there are A LOT more invalid syllogisms than valid ones and to pick invalid ones with even probability at any step of the chain would make extremely difficult to pick polysillogisms that do not die (in meaning) prematurely.
All BLOW is KEN
All BLOW is NIGHT
Some NIGHT is KEN
All NIGHT is FRAME
Some FRAME is KEN
All FRAME is ROPE
Some ROPE is KEN
All ROPE is AMEN
Some AMEN is KEN
All AMEN is LINE
Some LINE is KEN
All LINE is SHAME
Some SHAME is KEN
All SHAME is CORE
Some CORE is KEN
All CORE is LIGHT
Some LIGHT is KEN
All LIGHT is SLAP
Some SLAP is KEN
All SLAP is BYTE
Some BYTE is KEN
All BYTE is WINE
Some WINE is KEN
All WINE is SIGN
Some SIGN is KEN
All SIGN is KITE
Some KITE is KEN
All KITE is HOPE
Some HOPE is KEN
All HOPE is SLOPE
Some SLOPE is KEN
All SLOPE is SOAP
Some SOAP is KEN
All SOAP is FLOOR
Some FLOOR is KEN
All FLOOR is PINE
Some PINE is KEN
All PINE is BLAME
Some BLAME is KEN
All BLAME is BOW
Some BOW is KEN
All BOW is MEN
Some MEN is KEN
All MEN is CRAP
Some CRAP is KEN
All CRAP is DOOR
Some DOOR is KEN
You see that KEN is alway there at the end. The thing is that you either use the subject or the predicate of the conclusion before as the middle-term or predicate of the major premise that follows.
At the moment for easy of comprehension I'm always working with predicates, but I could substitute the middle-term and that trail of KENs would disappear.