The sky autocorrelation turned out to be inflated by a control that did not
match the data, so the 368 result was re-checked the same way rather than
being left on the evidence I now know to be weak.
Range measured: each level's post-shrub region start, first 65536 bytes.
Method: as before, but the control is the same bytes shuffled rather than
uniform random. Shuffling preserves the value distribution and destroys only
the ordering, which is what a control for this statistic needs to do.
Level 0's region is evenly distributed -- 256 distinct byte values, most
common only 15.6% -- so uniform random was the appropriate control here, and
the shuffled control independently confirms it, reading 0.0000 at strides 340,
368 and 4 against the real data's 0.1110 at 368.
Recomputed across all levels with matched controls: 24 of 24 peak at exactly
368, every one with excess above 0.05.
So the 368 period stands, now with a control appropriate to its data. The
contrast is the useful part: the same statistic, asked the same question of
two regions, gave a real answer in one and an inflated one in the other, and
the only thing that separated them was whether the control matched the byte
distribution.
ReaperOfVeriod
98c0d1ab3c