Regarding how to read the map:
I've been looking over a lot of Q's statements about reading the map…things like game theory, think direction, think circles, multiple paths, future proves past, how is POTUS always 5 steps ahead, etc.
This took me in the direction of machine learning, which I have only a vague knowledge of. I'm going to try to summarize what I've learned so far, but a lot of it is new so I may be off.
One particular area of ML, Q LEARNING (!!!), jumped out at me. Q learning essentially allows for optimal decision making over time in a dynamic environment. It learns both the immediate and eventual reward of any given action, and attempts to find the optimal balance of each. It then uses this data to build a table of all possible "states" an "agent" could find itself in. Each and every state will have the optimal action to take already determined, thus enabling them to take the ideal route.
I can't help but be fairly convinced that many of the crumbs we received were just fractions of all the potential states and actions that had been laid out to optimally react and proceed with the operation.
One commonly seen application of this is in a grid, where Q values are represented for each direction one could take. The fact that Q was fairly insistent on us capturing every post on to a graphic and laying it out seems possibly relevant to me.
Just as an agent works through a grid in the classic Q-learning problem, we could see which squares in the grid (posts) are currently being explored (actually occurring) based on news confirmations. It's possible if we lit those posts up green, some sort of pattern could be observed? I believe the [MARKERS] may play some role in this, especially because brackets are used a lot in notation for Q-learning expressions.
Just as some squares of a grid will be marked with lower values and thus will never be explored, some posts are not valid, whether by purpose or because they represented a possiblity that did not occur. This is why "Disinfo is necessary"
Future proves past, because many possibilities are being laid out in front of us, but only until other parties react a certain way will the outcome (contained in a single stringer or post) be confirmed. Then we can mark the post (or stringer) as being validated. I believe this ties into the POTUS twitter confirmations with them possible serving as some stronger form of validation.
Unfortunately, due to the limits of my knowledge it would probably take me some time to find any hard application of this concept in the Q MAP. But I really believe the idea has merit, so I wanted to share it even if only in the abstract, and hope maybe some other Autist could run with it and find something of value.
I'll keep working with the idea and share anything I find, but I'd appreciate any feedback.