The obvious follow-up to last commit's wep_85 finding: the weapon packages number
00 to 84 with 26 holes, so are those holes cut weapons too? Partitioning every
number 00-85 by package-present x named-anywhere-in-the-parsed-pak-data:
named in data not named
package present 59 0
package absent 1 26
59 + 0 + 1 + 26 = 86, the numbers 00 through 85.
The 26 gaps are simply unused numbers, not unshipped weapons - nothing in the
data names them at all. The one occupied cell is the one already known: wep_85,
named 16 times, with no package. It is an isolated cut, not a pattern, which
refutes the natural expectation that finding one cut weapon means finding a
family of them.
The other zero is worth as much: 0 shipped packages are never named. Every
rou_f001_wep_NN.xpr on the disc is referenced by the data, so the package set and
the weapon vocabulary agree in both directions but for that single entry.
Running the identical test on the craft family gives a clean negative. Every
rou_f### number appearing inside an .xpr against every number named in the parsed
data: 16 in both, 0 named-but-unshipped, 0 shipped-but-unnamed. The 16 are
f001-f004, f101, f102, f104-f106, f201, f202, f301-f303, f401, f402 - the
hundreds digit groups them into five families with holes inside each (no f103, no
f203). No craft was cut.
So across both families the disc ships exactly what it declares, with the single
exception of that one weapon.
All seventeen artefacts byte-identical.
3412bf3a85