[crazygringo]

Except it's not 65536 -- it's 65356. (I just verified in the PDF.)

Which actually makes me wonder if somebody fat-fingered it and meant to type 65536 by hand and got it wrong. Which given everything we've found out about the sloppiness there, would seem quite apropos.

Normally I wouldn't think so, but the trailing "999994" also just seems so strangely floating point-derived... but who even knows.

[kevin_thibedeau]

65536 requires 17-bits. So maybe they tried the one-too-large number, failed, and assumed they transposed something.

[thinkingkong]

Well at least someone in this chain of information is dyslexic.