R-276 correction: check-lethality fights solo, and I read the wrong column

Asked to re-record the lethality baseline against a lone redcap, I read the tool
and found it already does: measure(party, [spec]), with a comment saying "Solo,
because a creature is the unit under test". My claim that it fights packs came
from memory of check-focus, whose redcap is n: 3.

The lethality figure was also not hiding the power. Wipe rate moved 0.7% to 0.9%
because one redcap cannot wipe four agents whatever it ignores -- that column is
at its floor. Agents down moved 0.55 to 0.74 of 4, a 35% relative increase, which
is the column I did not look at.

No baseline re-recorded: it is already solo and was re-recorded in R-275.

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

docs/REVIEW_LOG.md

@@ -6334,12 +6334,25 @@ round and spends four defences, so exemption from the stacking penalty is most o
 survival. Three redcaps against four agents are attacked roughly once each, never spend a
 second defence, and the power is worth a tenth of a point.
 
-**Which is why check-lethality barely moved.** Its redcap figure went 0.7% to 0.9% wiped,
-and I reported that in R-275 as "small, because these fights rarely spend a second
-defence". That was the right explanation and I under-read it: the lethality baseline fights
-redcaps in a pack, and **the pack is precisely the configuration in which this power is
-worth nothing**. The guard suite is not wrong, it is measuring the case where the rule does
-the least, so the number it reports is the floor rather than the effect.
+**Which is why check-lethality barely moved.** ~~Its redcap figure went 0.7% to 0.9%
+wiped... the lethality baseline fights redcaps in a pack, and the pack is precisely the
+configuration in which this power is worth nothing.~~
+
+> **CORRECTED, and the correction is worse than the claim.** `check-lethality` fights every
+> creature **solo** — `measure(party, [spec])`, with a comment two lines up saying so:
+> *"Solo, because a creature is the unit under test — counts are an encounter's business."*
+> I asserted it fought packs from memory of a different guard. It is **check-focus** that
+> records a pack size, and its redcap is `n: 3` — so the "measured where the power does
+> nothing" point is true, and true of the other guard.
+>
+> And the lethality figure was never hiding anything. Wipe rate moved 0.7% to 0.9% because
+> **one redcap cannot wipe four agents whatever it ignores** — that column is at its floor.
+> The column that moved is *agents down*, **0.55 to 0.74 of 4**, which is a 35% relative
+> increase and is not small at all. I read the small number, explained it, and did not look
+> at the one next to it.
+>
+> Two statistics, two guards, and I had them crossed in both directions. Found by being
+> asked to re-record a baseline that was already recorded the way I said it was not.
 
 **One thing I nearly presented as evidence and did not.** At seed 3 the party wins with the
 power on and is wiped with it off — the opposite of the power's direction. That is not a