From 8ebe4edff2830920272130a9fbc693e0c7c1915a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sylpheed RE agent Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 01:15:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re: test what the 'A' route kind means across all 28 stages -- enriched, not "attackers" Swept every Route_*_p 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 | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md b/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md index 774a228..a1fd0f0 100644 --- a/docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md +++ b/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+152,44 @@ It also explains the two results that looked like problems: from four squadrons; that prediction is **withdrawn**.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` 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