From 1ed4d4b1407c2637c57023ea3b8b8046cee8326d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sylpheed RE agent Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:55:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re: test the OB hypothesis's weak point statically -- it holds, but a premise was wrong Decoded stage\UnitGroup_S02.tbl with the existing unitgroup.py (pure static, no emulator; 111 squadrons, roster self-check 111/111). The "four per squadron" premise was 16/4, a mean, and I flagged that 5/5/3/3 would make the step-of-four a coincidence. Measured: Stage 02 has NINE e010_Attacker_S squadrons totalling 45 members, sized 4,4,4,6,4,6,4,9,4 -- not uniform across the stage, but SIX of the nine hold exactly 4, and phase 1's share is independently recorded as 4 groups / 16 craft = 4 x 4. So the phase-1 squadrons are the n=4 ones and the step-of-four is a real size, not an averaging artifact. But a premise of the note is refuted: ADN110/111/112, which I cited as the polled squadrons arriving at t=170, are UN_e007_ADAN_Turret with n=9 -- TURRET squadrons, not attackers. That arrival evidence is about turrets and is withdrawn from the argument. Records the tension it exposes: mission-wave-arrivals.md calls ADN110/111/112 the squadrons the phase-1 clear condition polls, while mission-objectives-text.md has the phase-1 objective as the marked attackers. Unresolved. --- docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md b/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md index 18ea1a2b..d3bfd310 100644 --- a/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md +++ b/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md @@ -60,6 +60,52 @@ and the single decrement came from the single run that killed attackers. deployed) → 2 (active), so the prediction is `counter == 4 × (active e010 squadrons) − (marked attackers killed)`. +## ✅ The weak point, tested statically — and it holds for phase 1 + +The caveat below said "four per squadron" was `16 / 4`, a **mean**, and that +5/5/3/3 would make the step-of-four a coincidence. That is now measured, from the +disc, with no emulator: `tools/re-capture/unitgroup.py S02` decodes +`stage\UnitGroup_S02.tbl` (111 squadrons, 116 members, roster self-check +111/111). + +Every `UN_e010_ADAN_Attacker_S` squadron in Stage 02: + +| squadron | n | | squadron | n | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| `ADN204` | **4** | | `ADN209` | 6 | +| `ADN206` | **4** | | `ADS151` | **4** | +| `ADT102` | **4** | | `ADS251` | 9 | +| `ADN208` | 6 | | `ADT107` | **4** | +| `ADT113` | **4** | | | | + +**9 groups, 45 members** — so the sizes are *not* uniform across the stage. But +**six of the nine hold exactly 4**, and phase 1's share is independently recorded +as **4 groups / 16 craft** — which is `4 × 4` exactly. So the phase-1 squadrons +are the `n = 4` ones, and the step-of-four is a real per-squadron size rather +than an artifact of averaging. 🟡 upgraded on that specific point. + +## ❌ A premise of this note was WRONG — ADN110/111/112 are TURRETS + +This note said the polled squadrons ADN110, ADN111 and ADN112 arrive at t=170 and +implied they are the marked attackers. The roster says otherwise: + +``` +ADN110 unit=UN_e007_ADAN_Turret n=9 +ADN111 unit=UN_e007_ADAN_Turret n=9 +ADN112 unit=UN_e007_ADAN_Turret n=9 +``` + +All three are **turret** squadrons of **nine**. So the arrival-time evidence I +quoted is about turrets, not about the objective craft, and it does **not** +support this reading. It has to be withdrawn from the argument. + +❔ **And it leaves a genuine tension in the corpus**, worth stating rather than +smoothing: [`mission-wave-arrivals.md`](mission-wave-arrivals.md) calls +ADN110/111/112 "the three squadrons the phase-1 clear condition polls", while +[`mission-objectives-text.md`](mission-objectives-text.md) has the phase-1 +objective as the *marked attackers*. Those cannot both be the clear condition +unless the poll covers more than the objective. Unresolved here. + ## ❌ What this is NOT * Not measured. No run was made for this note; every number in it is quoted from