PAR: reconcile the turn1-state outcome set with lane CB's concurrent pinned runs

CB pinned the seeds and got d59bb9f2 three times; this lane left the seeds free, watched client
512's single research tie-break draw resolve with a different number of rejections in each process
(1, 3, 1 words), and still got d59bb9f2 three times. Different experiments, agreeing in a way that
constrains the mechanism: whatever maps that drawn word onto a research target is NOT a uniform
index into a six-member shortlist, or three unpinned runs agreeing would be 1-in-36 on top of CB's
1-in-36. One line resolves it -- log the chosen tech id beside the draw in a probe on 0x006a8390,
whose cl_RandRange bound IS the shortlist size the k question is about.

findings/subsystems/roll-parity.md

@@ -231,19 +231,30 @@ It is also the sharpest available warning against the wrong conclusion: **"the c
 when the seed changed" is not evidence for roll parity.** The count is stable here because the
 *path* was stable. §3.2 holds the path fixed and moves the seed, and the count moves.
 
-### 3.5 An observation this lane could not resolve
+### 3.5 The `turn1-state` outcome set is not being sampled the way the campaign assumes
 
-All three `turn1-state` runs produced the same post-turn autosave, `d59bb9f2fd0eb535`, even though
-client 512's stream demonstrably differed between them (1 word, 3 words, 1 word). Lane L5 reports
-**three different files** from three runs of this pair on VM146, and `campaign/board.md` records
-`turn1-state → turn2` as non-deterministic on that basis.
+All three `turn1-state` runs produced the same post-turn autosave, `d59bb9f2fd0eb535` — **and they
+were unpinned**, each process drawing its own AI seeds, with client 512's stream demonstrably
+different between them (1 word, 3 words, 1 word: the same single `cl_RandRange` call resolving with
+different numbers of rejections, so different generator values reached the decision).
 
-Both cannot be a complete description. Three identical outcomes from a k = 6 tie set (lane L4) is a
-1-in-36 coincidence, so "it is deterministic after all" is not supported either. The honest
-statement is that **the draw differs and the outcome did not**, on this guest, three times — and
-that whatever maps the drawn word onto the chosen tech is not a plain uniform index into the
-shortlist. Flagged, not resolved; it wants the tech id logged next to the draw, which is one line in
-a probe on `0x006a8390`.
+Lane CB, concurrently and on a different guest, reports the same file from **three pinned** runs,
+and notes that lane L5's own `hooks=off` run produced it too. So the tally on that workload now
+stands at roughly **seven observations of `d59bb9f2` against lane L5's report of three different
+files**, and `campaign/board.md`'s "`turn1-state → turn2` is non-deterministic" is true but much
+narrower than it reads.
+
+The new thing this lane can add is that **the draw differed and the outcome did not**. Lane CB
+pinned the seed and removed the variation; this lane left the seed free, watched the variation
+happen *inside* the generator, and still got one file. Those are different experiments and they
+agree in a way that constrains the mechanism: whatever maps client 512's drawn word onto a research
+target is **not a uniform index into a six-member shortlist**. If it were, three unpinned runs
+agreeing would be a 1-in-36 coincidence on top of lane CB's 1-in-36.
+
+Not resolved, and it is one line to resolve: log the chosen tech id beside the draw in a probe on
+`0x006a8390`, whose `cl_RandRange(0, n-1)` bound `n` is the shortlist size the whole `k` question is
+about. Lane CB's own honest note — that player 512's target `282` is outside the named set and
+"k = 6, all six nameable" is not closed — is the same open item seen from the outcome side.
 
 ---