R-277: n=3 is right for the redcap, and R-276 was wrong about why

check-focus picks the pack size nearest an even fight. For the redcap that is
n=3 at 28.0% against n=2's 73.4% -- correct, and also where focus fire is worth
most. But the margin is 1.4 points and the scan is 400 runs: run across eight
seeds it picks 3 seven times and 2 once, and the recorded gain would move 6.3 to
4.9 with it.

R-276's explanation was wrong. Its table was measured against the CLEAN GROUND
cut, which it never named. Against the frozen party a lone redcap is worth 0.4
rather than 6.1, because that party wins 98.9% and nothing shows against a
ceiling. The power is worth most where the fight is in doubt -- 3.8 at n=2, 3.1
at n=3, nothing at either end. Not outnumbered. Undecided.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/REVIEW_LOG.md

@@ -6359,3 +6359,47 @@ power on and is wiped with it off — the opposite of the power's direction. Tha
 finding, it is two diverging streams: change one roll and every subsequent fight is a
 different fight. A single seed shows what happened, never what a rule is worth, which this
 log has now learned twice in one day and would have learned a third time here.
+
+## R-277 — n=3 is right for the redcap, and R-276's explanation of why was wrong twice over
+
+Asked whether `check-focus` records the right pack size for a redcap. The frozen party
+against n of them, 1000 runs x 3 seeds:
+
+| n | spread | focus | focus gain | without NOT TIRED | the power is worth |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | 98.9% | 98.9% | 0.0 | 99.3% | 0.4 |
+| 2 | 73.4% | 78.3% | 4.9 | 77.1% | **3.8** |
+| 3 | **28.0%** | 34.3% | **6.3** | 31.1% | 3.1 |
+| 4 | 3.7% | 7.3% | 3.6 | 4.2% | 0.6 |
+| 5 | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0.4 | 0.5% | 0.2 |
+| 6 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
+
+**n=3 is correct, on the criterion the guard actually uses and on two others.** `pickSize`
+takes the size nearest an even fight: |28.0 − 50| = 22.0 against n=2's 23.4. It is also
+where focus fire is worth most (6.3, clear of its 1.4 noise), and it is one of the two
+sizes where the creature's power does anything.
+
+**But the margin is 1.4 points and the scan is 400 runs.** Running `pickSize` as the guard
+runs it across eight seeds: **n=3 seven times and n=2 once**. So the recorded pack size for
+this creature is one seed in eight away from being 2, and the recorded gain would move 6.3
+to 4.9 with it. The baseline is right and it is not *robustly* right, which is a property of
+a 1.4-point margin rather than a defect in the choice.
+
+**AND R-276'S WHOLE EXPLANATION WAS WRONG.** It said NOT TIRED "is a rule about being
+outnumbered", from a table showing 6.1 points against one redcap and 0.1 against three.
+Both figures were measured against **the CLEAN GROUND four-player cut**, which R-276 never
+named, and against the frozen party the pattern inverts: a lone redcap is worth **0.4**, not
+6.1, because that party wins 98.9% of the time and nothing can show an effect against a
+ceiling.
+
+The real pattern is the one the guard's own `MEASURABLE` band already encodes: **the power
+is worth most where the fight is in doubt** — 3.8 at n=2 and 3.1 at n=3, falling to nothing
+at both ends. Not outnumbered. Undecided. I invented a mechanism that fitted two points from
+an unnamed party, and it was wrong in the same shape as the `--mode` citation this morning:
+a figure that is correct for the configuration I ran and stated as though it were general.
+
+**Three corrections to one entry in one day.** R-276 claimed a guard fought packs when it
+fights solo, read the wipe column when the agents-down column was the one that moved, and
+explained a power by a mechanism that does not hold. Each was found by somebody asking me to
+act on it. The entry is worth keeping in that state rather than tidying: it is the clearest
+example in this log of confident, internally consistent, repeatedly wrong.