re: test what the 'A' route kind means across all 28 stages -- enriched, not "attackers"

Swept every Route_*_p<n><kind> in every stage table, resolving each squadron to
its unit via that stage's own UnitGroup, with F/S/M routes as the control:

  A/B routes   : 23 of 67 resolved are attacker/bomber = 34.3%
  F/S/M control: 27 of 928                             =  2.9%

A ~12x enrichment, so the signal is real and not a one-stage accident.  But "A
means the marked attackers" remains too strong: of the 67 resolved A/B routes, 35
carry UN_mn040_Asteroid_Big and 9 carry UN_n001_TTRL_Box (TTRL = tutorial).  A
reading covering all four is "things the mission wants shot" -- attackers in a
combat stage, asteroids in an asteroid stage, boxes in a tutorial -- which keeps A
as an objective marker rather than a unit-class marker, but that is a reading of
four unit types, not a measurement.

Records a near-miss: a truncated listing showed the first ~26 rows, dominated by
early stages, in which every resolved row was an attacker.  I nearly wrote "23/23,
unanimous".  The full set is 23/67 -- the tail of a sorted listing is not the
distribution.

The Stage 02 derivation is unaffected: its three A routes are still exactly the
three n=4 attacker squadrons.

docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md

@@ -152,10 +152,44 @@ It also explains the two results that looked like problems:
   from four squadrons; that prediction is **withdrawn**. `ADS151` is an `F` route
   and is not counted, so the ceiling is 12.
 
-🟡 The reading of `A` as "the marked attack objective" is inference from a
-three-route sample in one stage. It is strongly consistent with the mission
-dialogue ("the attackers with the orange markers") and with `A` appearing only in
-early phases corpus-wide, but the letter's meaning is not proven.
+### 🟡 What `A` means, tested across all 28 stages — enriched, but not "attackers"
+
+The three-route sample in one stage was too small to read a meaning off, so the
+sweep was run corpus-wide: every `Route_*_p<n><kind>` in every stage table,
+resolving each squadron to its unit through that stage's own `UnitGroup`.
+
+| route kind | resolved | attacker/bomber |
+|---|---|---|
+| **`A`/`B`** | 67 | **23 = 34.3 %** |
+| `F`/`S`/`M` (control) | 928 | 27 = **2.9 %** |
+
+A **~12× enrichment** for attacker/bomber units on `A`/`B` routes — the signal is
+real and it is not a one-stage accident.
+
+❌ **But "A means the marked attackers" is still too strong**, and the full
+distribution says why:
+
+| unit on a resolved `A`/`B` route | n |
+|---|---|
+| `UN_mn040_Asteroid_Big` | **35** |
+| `UN_e010_ADAN_Attacker_S` | 12 |
+| `UN_e011_ADAN_Attacker_B` | 11 |
+| `UN_n001_TTRL_Box` | 9 |
+
+Most `A` routes carry **asteroids**, and nine carry `TTRL_Box` — `TTRL` being the
+tutorial prefix. 🟡 A reading that covers all four is *"things the mission wants
+shot"*: attackers in a combat stage, asteroids in an asteroid stage, boxes in a
+tutorial. That is consistent, and it keeps `A` as an objective marker rather than
+a unit-class marker — but it is a reading of four unit types, not a measurement.
+
+⚠️ **Correction to my own first look at this data.** A truncated listing showed
+the first ~26 rows, which are dominated by early stages, and every resolved row in
+it was an attacker — I nearly recorded "23/23, unanimous". The full set is 23/67.
+The tail of a sorted listing is not the distribution.
+
+None of this disturbs the Stage 02 derivation above: S02's three `A` routes are
+still exactly the three `n = 4` attacker squadrons, and the predicted trajectory
+is unchanged.
 
 ## ❌ A premise of this note was WRONG — ADN110/111/112 are TURRETS