Try reading with comprehension. What I wrote is that the information I can see in the FC UC UI shows apparent inconsistencies that cast doubt on both the formulae and on the accuracy and meaning of the FC module reports. "Cast doubt" does not mean "it's wrong," it means there is some uncertainty that needs to be resolved. I'm not trying to "prove" anything as I offer no explanations for such inconsistencies, just that they exist for whatever reason. I also stated there is not enough information to resolve these inconsistencies. Try not to get so defensive, it'll help your blood pressure.
I have not sold exploradata to a station since the FCs dropped, but as I recall they also offered an "Accolades" screen or some equivalent thereof in which bonuses for First Discovery and First Mapping were reported. The FC UI is not a "confusing new interface," it's an adaptation of what goes on in the stations. It could very well be buggy on a number of levels other than those I have reported, but I haven't encountered those yet so it's hard to say with any certainty. I try not to speculate or make assumptions. I do think, as I have stated, that comparing how station UC contacts and FC UC modules deal with similar data sales would be helpful, but I'm not in a position to do that atm.
One of the inconsistencies involves the carrier tax, which per the existing FC UC UI definitely applies to the bonus credits reported in the Accolades screen (it says so, bottom right of the screen) but it is unclear whether or not it also applies to some degree to the figures listed in the payout screen. I did try calculating the specific amount of that "cut" at one point by using my bank balance and carrier bank balance numbers but lacking that particular piece of information (what % might be taken from non-bonus payouts) the results were not enlightening.
I did not claim "exploration data values have changed" at all, you should again practice reading with comprehension. I only stated the existence of inconsistencies in the payout and bonus numbers as reported by the FC UC UI. Seems to me that such inconsistencies were probably the impetus behind MattG's work to determine what the payouts were actually all about, so I can't see the problem in documenting new ones as they arise.
I certainly understand lack of coffee!
Thanks for breaking down those numbers, they make sense as presented if one assumes all bonuses are included in the Payout screen figures, with one glaring exception -- see below. Here I have questions regarding your analysis. If the Accolades screen is only for stating what tags you earned, why is there also a report of a credit bonus from First Discovery which always shows a positive value whether or not you First Discover the entire system (see example #3 in post #52), and for First Map, which always shows zero even when all bodies in a system are mapped in one session (see example #2 in post #52). If the Accolades screen is simply reporting bonuses already incorporated in the Payout screen figures, then it is falsely reporting the First Map bonuses. If such bonuses are applied in addition to the Payout figures, then the First Discovery bonus would (according to your formulae) be a double bonus as it does not require First Discovery of the entire system, and the First Mapping bonus would be reported wrong in all cases. This is a major inconsistency that I see no way to resolve without making assumptions I have no information to support.
The 25% hit on bonuses is documented in the Accolades screen. Where did you find that it applies also to the Payout screen figures? And that the carrier bank only receives half the cut -- 12.5%? I did look but had no luck getting those important pieces of info confirmed. That is why my attempts to use actual payout amounts to investigate haven't been useful, not enough information.
(NOTE: Next is the glaring exception from above)
If as you state the Payout screen figures reflect the payout after the FC cut (as does the Accolades screen figure, it says so in the UI), where in your calculation of the payout for planet #4, above, is this taken into account? You managed to calculate the figure to the exact credit but nowhere can I see you have accounted for the "hit" the FC takes per your statement. Are you assuming the cut is applied only to the 8622 "base" payout for FSS only? If so, why would the game ignore all the multipliers you cite and tax only the base figure? Does that happen in all cases, even when discovery and mapping are done in a single session? Again, questions arise.
Yeah, I've also had to reverse engineer "black box" functions, and it is a beyotch, no argument. I think you've done an excellent job using statistical analysis of payout data and the like to break it all down, and despite others' misinterpretation, have no problems with your work other than as explained -- inconsistencies and discrepancies are there in the numbers as well as their presentation by the FC UC UI. The source(s) of these is unclear.
