R29 found the discriminator claimed "exact across all seven" while r07 is recorded lower
down as "inconclusive rather than ruled out, because no evidence came back from it". A row
this page calls inconclusive cannot also be counted as evidence for the conclusion.
Checking it turned up a second instance of the same over-count, which R29 did not name. The
abort-cadence section said "Measured across the seven runs above" -- but the table records
r07's aborts as **not readable**, because adb wedged before a crash buffer could be taken.
Six runs contributed gaps, not seven.
Both now say six, and both say why. The discriminator paragraph also says what excluding r07
costs, which is nothing: it is a `host` row, so the discriminator predicts it would not boot,
and confirming a prediction with the one run whose evidence did not come back adds no
information in either direction. That is the point R29 made -- claiming six does not weaken
the conclusion -- and it is worth stating in the document rather than only in the ticket,
because the next reader will otherwise wonder whether a run was quietly dropped.
Deliberately left: "four of the seven runs show the directory creation itself is broken
during the loop". That is a count of how many runs showed something, not a claim that all
seven were readable for it, so it survives. Checked rather than assumed, and named here so
the next pass does not re-audit it.
R29's other half -- "state how r07's boot outcome was read" -- is not taken, because I do
not know and inventing a source would be worse than narrowing the claim. Narrowing is the
option R29 offered and the one that can be honest.
Closes#38.
JMR-dev
d01a46a708