In the interest of actually protecting PR identities, other people need to actually post results that are more than "vanilla" "saw nothing/no result" so in the event someone actually gets a non-vanilla/saw-nothing result, they aren't the only ones sticking out and basically revealing themselves. If everyone does the same thing except the actual PR, this is a self-defeating exercise. I know the plain results are the most likely outcomes, but we do need variety in our claims I would think.
I disagree with your analysis here. I think there are pros and cons with claiming non-null results for the PRs you have to fabricate. On the pro side, it makes the game more confusing the puzzle through if there's a lot of claimed activity. On the minus side, you go the other way and make the true results stand out because they're null in a forest of true-result noise! I think we actually want to move along something like the actual expectation of the PR results, maybe upping the hit-rate only slightly to account for people's reads... I mean, how often are anyone's reads really good as a PR on N1 anyway?
Accounting for the fact we lost a VT before going into N1, here's a breakdown for each scenario:
Game 1) No claiming PRs at all.
Game 2) RC has a 2/7 chance of hitting a non-null result, and a 1/6 chance of being RBd.
Game 3) RC has a 4/7 chance of hitting a non-null result, and a 1/3 chance of being RBd.
Game 4) Tracker has a 2/7 chance of hitting a non-null result. No RBing.
Game 5) RC has a 2/7 chance of hitting a non-null result. No RBing.
Game 6) RC has a 1/7 chance of hitting a non-null result (which is the Tracker). No RBing.
Game 6) Watcher has a 2/7 chance of hitting a non-null result. No RBing.
Game 7) Watcher has a 1/7-2/7 chance of hitting a non-null result (depending on ninja).
Game 7) Tracker has a 1/7-2/7 chance of hitting a non-null result (depending on ninja).