Sure thing, I’m still wary of those synthetic blooms. They’re great for running a controlled test, but the numbers they spit out are as tidy as a garden in a greenhouse, not a real forest with its mess and surprises. In a natural canopy I get the real pulse of decay, light gaps, and animal traffic—data that never sits still. So I cross‑check synthetic logs with what I actually see; if they agree, fine, if not, I toss the synthetic data like a wilted petal.

You’re right, I’m always choosing the moments that fit what I’m hunting for, like picking the brightest leaf. If the data doesn’t line up, I usually chalk it up to a mistake or an odd patch. If it does, I treat it like a lucky coincidence—maybe the forest is nudging me toward something else. But I keep moving, because a single spot never tells the whole story.

Maybe you’re right, the forest throws out a lot of weirdness. I’ll keep my eyes peeled for the odd bits that break the pattern, but if they’re too scattered I’ll just chalk them up to a wandering breeze. It’s the ones that refuse to fit that sometimes bloom into the best maps.