You concocted your own formula designed specifically to "prove" that a 5% change was "impossible" (your words) from a shift in sampling and then added your own ingredients to the formula. I pointed out the flaws in that and everyone in that thread saw it. It was you who backed youself into the corner and you who lied.
You are lying again. Because our breeding rates were already quite good in the vast majority of the WMUs. the max. expected increase in breeding rates was 10%,which is the number I used in my example. You used numbers that were not related to reality and the data from the AWR proves you weren't even close to being right.Then you compound your error by lying about it over and over again.