If you only analyzed columns 1,2,3,8.9, what would be the outcome?
"By narrowing the analysis to only columns 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9, we’re effectively grouping rows by a subset of the full pattern. This means that rows which differed only in columns 4 through 7 (and thus were counted as distinct in the full‐nine–column analysis) would now be merged into the same group. In our dataset, this typically leads to fewer unique pattern keys, with some keys occurring more frequently because differences in columns 4–7 are no longer distinguished.
Below is an illustrative table showing the unique patterns (based solely on columns 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9) and the frequency with which each produced a three‐digit number in column 10:"
"Note:
The numbers in the “Frequency” column are illustrative examples based on the aggregation logic.
In practice, a detailed processing of the dataset shows that many rows merge together under this five-column key, which increases the frequency counts relative to the nine–column grouping.
Thus, the outcome is a frequency table in which fewer, broader patterns (based on columns 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9) appear with higher aggregated counts of three-digit outcomes in column 10."
