diff --git a/docs/plan/level-assets.md b/docs/plan/level-assets.md
index 5566639..78b0c55 100644
--- a/docs/plan/level-assets.md
+++ b/docs/plan/level-assets.md
@@ -2045,8 +2045,30 @@ and `tie_classes` offsets, so there is no single function that indexes both chun
 tables by immediate. The moby loader, if it exists in this form, does not reach
 the tie table the same way.
 
-**Next step, now concrete:** the 394 is a real shortlist. Take the ones whose
-immediates also include chunk offsets that *do* look like class-table references,
-or the largest ones -- the 34,316-byte outlier is the most promising single
-target -- and disassemble those. That is bounded work, unlike the four probes
-that produced nothing.
+### Ranking by size does not narrow, and biases toward false positives
+
+The obvious next move was to rank the 394 largest-first and start with the
+biggest. Ranked, over 2,323 functions, median candidate size 852:
+
+    0x2ba7d8  34,316 bytes   631 distinct immediates
+    0x2cb3a8  26,432         421
+    0x300618  11,348         155
+    0x3ae900   8,440         208
+    ...                              median 852
+
+**This ranking is probably backwards.** A function with 631 distinct immediates
+is far more likely to contain any given value -- including `0xc0` -- than one with
+80, purely by pigeonhole. Sorting by size therefore selects *for* the very
+functions most likely to be false positives, and the 34,316-byte outlier is
+probably a mis-bounded extent (the decomp corrects three level-00 entries, per
+`docs/LEVELS.md`) rather than a 34 KB loader.
+
+So the 394 needs a size-independent statistic before it is a shortlist. The right
+measure is whether a function contains `0xc0` **more often than its immediate
+count predicts** -- expected count from the neighbourhood rate, observed count
+inside that function -- rather than whether it contains it at all. That has not
+been measured.
+
+Recorded rather than claimed as progress: ranking by size is the wrong first cut,
+and the reason is a confound that would have made the result look better than it
+was.