The 16-byte reading was retracted without a replacement. This searches for one --
every tie vertex region, strides 4, 8, ... up to len/16, keeping any stride where
some byte offset is constant across every unit:
regions examined 1,844
no stride found at all 1,139 (61.7%)
stride 64 491
stride 56 120
stride 72 49
stride 48 12
stride 16 3
64 where a stride is detectable, not 16. And for 1,139 regions there is no stride
in range producing a single constant byte -- those are genuinely variable, or the
element is larger than region/16, which is the same statement.
THE CONTROL THAT CHANGED THE ANSWER
The first run reported 1,561 regions at stride 64. Wrong, and wrong in a way worth
recording: a large stride divides a region into fewer units, and fewer units makes
an accidental constant more likely. Region length is fixed across candidates, so
the widest stride always has the fewest units and the best chance of constancy by
luck alone. The search was reporting its own sampling.
Requiring every candidate stride to cover the SAME minimum of 16 units, and
preferring the SMALLER stride on ties, drops it to 491 and promotes 56 and 72 into
view, which were invisible before.
This is rule 3a's sampling failure in its purest form -- an aggregate over
candidates with different denominators, where the largest denominator wins for a
reason unconnected to the data. The first number was not imprecise; it WAS the
artefact. Worth noting that without the control I would have reported "64" with
confidence and been right by accident, three times the observed figure.
What this does not settle: 64 is the stride where one is detectable, which is not
the same as the stride. The 1,139 regions with no constant byte at any tested
stride leave the element genuinely unknown. But 16 is now excluded quantitatively
-- 3 of 1,844 regions show a constant byte there -- which is the retraction's
content, as a measurement, and a third independent check now agreeing with it.
ReaperOfVeriod
b3b4d47d97