The row's alternative was labelled P 31 1 2 (151) while its own reason
argued for P 32 1 2; the deposited P 32 has P 32 1 2 (153) as its 312
supergroup, and P 31 1 2 is accepted from it as the hand, so scoring is
unchanged (rugnux's P 31 1 2 still passes as an accepted alternative).
Evidence re-checked on the rc173 run: the added two-folds correlate at
0.98-0.99 against 0.98 for the three-folds and 0.32-0.40 for the 321/622
operators, POINTLESS on the P1 merge picks P -3 1 m at likelihood 1.000,
and the zone centric in 312 but not in 3 reads centric (+435 nats). The
deposition's 55502 unique reflections to 1.747 A are what Laue class -3
holds, so the depositor merged in point group 3; the model breaks the
two-fold at a level it can resolve (R 0.22 vs 0.25 for the two
indexings). Both answers stay accepted.
The row is pinned to the first sweep (0-180 deg at 200 mm); the second
(180-360 deg at 300 mm, half the exposure, files numbered by phi) is the
same crystal's continuation, and the two were tied on frame count, so
the choice rested on the alphabetical tie-break. The earlier P 6 2 2
over-promotion was rugnux's and is refused by the current code.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013nW6FNRP1bBJJ8pfHiByAT
leonarski_fandClaude Opus 5
b791ece59d