re: the 42-vs-116 outlier does not reproduce; losses are observable

Two further runs sampled the counts from the instant flight is detected. Both
give 116 roster records in the very first sample, flat thereafter, with 14 unit
definitions throughout. That is not a load race: a race would climb toward 116
from below, and it never does.

The leading explanation was arithmetic rather than behavioural -- census_probe
counts raw aligned vtable hits while wave5_probe counted distinct primary_va
values, which are different quantities if an offset can alias to a VA another
offset also claims. Measuring both in the same run refutes it: 116 raw hits and
116 distinct VAs in every sample.

So the outlier stands unexplained. Four runs now read 116/300, 116/300, 116/296
and one 42/170, with save drift, freezing, load race and VA aliasing each
individually refuted. Recorded rather than dropped, because a one-in-four
anomaly in the measurement apparatus is what later turns into a wrong
conclusion. Practical rule adopted: discard a run that disagrees with 116 rather
than interpreting it, and reproduce any finding in at least two runs.

Useful new fact: craft declines steadily and monotonically in both runs, 300 to
288 and 296 to 280, roughly 16-20 losses over 168 s under the hunting pilot.
Whether the player or NPC crossfire is responsible is not determined here, but
destruction is visible in this signal, which is half of what the kill-versus-
no-kill experiment needs.

Still not observed in any run: an arrival.

docs/re/BACKLOG.md

@@ -347,7 +347,14 @@ search cannot find a *schedule*.
   Fan-in: only **41 of 116** records have craft (2×24, 4×1, 8×4, 18×12 = 300).
   ⇒ **an arrival is craft appearing for a record that had none; a kill is that
   count decreasing — both attributable to a named squadron**, hence to a route.
-  🔴 **BLOCKER (2026-08-24): the per-record measurement does not reproduce.**
+  ✅ **Blocker downgraded (2026-08-24): the baseline DOES reproduce** — two more
+  runs give 116 roster records flat from t=0 (not a load race) with craft
+  declining 300→288 and 296→280, so **losses are observable**. Raw hits ==
+  distinct VAs (116 == 116), so the VA-aliasing explanation is 🔴 refuted too.
+  🟡 The single 42/170 run stays unexplained; rule adopted: **discard a run that
+  disagrees with 116 rather than interpreting it, and reproduce any finding in
+  ≥2 runs.** ❔ No arrival seen in any run yet.
+  Earlier framing:
   [`mission-per-record-strength.md`](mission-per-record-strength.md) — one run
   gives 116 records/300 craft, the next 42/170, same disc, save and script. Save
   drift is REFUTED (savedata untouched since 2026-08-23) and the guest was not

docs/re/mission-per-record-strength.md

@@ -72,3 +72,62 @@ Every sample was identical: 170 craft, 24 deployed, no `0 → n`, no `n → n−
 2. **Get a confirmed kill.** Without one, the kill-versus-no-kill experiment
    cannot run. The pilot reaches firing range and does not destroy anything, so
    the gap is accuracy, not engagement.
+
+---
+
+# The 42-vs-116 outlier does not reproduce (2026-08-24)
+
+Status: ✅ the baseline is stable and it is **not** a load race; 🔴 the VA-aliasing
+explanation is refuted; 🟡 the outlier itself stays unexplained; ✅ losses are
+observable.
+
+`tools/re-capture/census_probe.py` samples the raw counts every 12–20 s from the
+instant flight is detected, and also reports what the scan is looking at.
+
+## ✅ Two further runs, both stable at 116
+
+```
+   t   roster   distVA   craft   defs   extents      MB
+   0      116      116     300     14       272    342.2
+  60      116      116     294     14       262    342.3
+ 120      116      116     292     14       258    342.4
+ 168      116      116     288     14       258    342.4
+```
+
+and a second run, 116 throughout, craft 296 → 280.
+
+**Not a load race.** The roster count is 116 in the very first sample and never
+moves — it does not climb toward 116 from below, which is what a race would look
+like. Definitions are 14 throughout, matching Stage 02's 14 unit types.
+
+## 🔴 Refuted: VA aliasing was not the cause
+
+The leading hypothesis was arithmetic rather than behavioural: `census_probe`
+counts **raw aligned vtable hits**, while `wave5_probe` counted **distinct
+`primary_va` values**, and if one offset can alias to a VA another offset also
+claims, those are simply different numbers. Measuring both in the same run
+settles it: **116 raw hits, 116 distinct VAs, in every sample**. They are the
+same number here, so the difference in what was counted cannot explain 42.
+
+## 🟡 The outlier stands, unexplained
+
+Four runs now: 116/300, 116/300, 116/296 — and one 42/170. Same disc, save,
+script and stage; save drift, freezing, load race and VA aliasing are all
+individually refuted. I do not know what produced it.
+
+What that changes in practice: the baseline is trustworthy enough to build on,
+but **any single run that disagrees with 116 should be discarded rather than
+interpreted**, and a result must be reproduced in at least two runs before it is
+written down as a finding. Recorded rather than quietly dropped, because a
+one-in-four anomaly in the measurement apparatus is exactly the kind of thing
+that later turns into a wrong conclusion.
+
+## ✅ Losses are observable; arrivals still are not
+
+Craft declines steadily and monotonically in both runs — 300 → 288 and
+296 → 280, roughly 16–20 losses over 168 s under the hunting pilot. Whether the
+player or the NPC crossfire is responsible is not determined here; what matters
+is that **destruction is visible in this signal**.
+
+No arrival has yet been seen in any run. The per-record `0 → n` watch is still
+the right instrument, and it can now be run against a known-good baseline.