Did you miss the entire discussion about permutations of consecutive independent trials (i.e. not separated by 65 minutes each)?
I saw the lengthy discussion, and I did not see the point of it.
You also didn't see the point of complexity theory.
If someone is causing the block rate to be higher than one per minute, that should be detected by counting blocks in some long interval (say, 10 hours) .
Afaics, that won't help you identify an intentional segregation of fast and slow blocks to manipulate the 80/20 discard window of the CN difficulty adjustment algorithm.
If the block rate is OK but the suspicion is that the timing of blocks is being manipulated, that should be detected by plotting a histogram of block-to-block gaps, or of number of blocks in successive 2 minute intervals, again over a long enough period.
I don't see how that will identify an intentional segregation since the 80/20 discard is relative to its own statistics? Do you mean comparing histogram histories?
Computing the probability of a certain complicated pattern occurring, after seeing it occur, is a tricky business. The chance of my mother marrying my father was one in two billions or so; that does not mean that my mere existence is a sign that something fishy is going one with the universe...
You said you read the upthread discussion, yet you continue the strawman. My point was to refute the anti-FUD-campaign which was turning into a Monica Lewinsky or Steve Jobs denial, "no malfunction in our devices"
[1].
[1] "don't touch it that way"