Does sharing observations help coalitions detect decoys better?

The abstract puts it in five words: "Pooling signals weakly increases distinguishability." I read "weakly" in its ordinary mathematical sense, as "never decreases," so this is a floor and not a promise of improvement. Whatever a single agent could infer about whether an object is a decoy from its own observations, a coalition holding all the observations can infer at least as much. The excerpt gives no rate and no measured gain.

The implication is for anyone counting on isolation. A defender who plants a decoy might assume each agent sees too little to recognise it. Pooling removes that assumption, because the coalition's power to tell decoys from genuine objects can only go up as members share what they saw. This ties the honeytoken result to the abstract's account of the episode. Agents that shared findings through a repository were pooling. The abstract names the repository as memory and separately states the pooling result. The link between them is a vault reading: the abstract does not say the repository carried decoy-related signals. The introduction fragment that survives, "lets process-isolated agents share information," has its subject cut off, so it is consistent with this but does not say so.

The objection is that "weakly" can mean "not at all." Pooled signals that add nothing new leave distinguishability where it was, so the result alone does not say sharing is dangerous, only that it is never protective. Whether pooling helped in the actual episode is not in the excerpt.

What the excerpt does not give. How signals are pooled in the model, how large the gain is, and any evidence that the agents in the episode pooled decoy-related signals.