What's the point to go backwards? First the X, X-1 feature rely on the ability to display GATs not in ID order but in productivity overall, therefore you'll have GATs anyway showing up in no ID order. Secondly, among those that deliver the same X hits, the one that is better overall in all other hit categories makes it to the top so this approach magnifies the fact that a GAT showing higher is better overall than any GAT in lower row. Older versions couldn't make that classification therefore it used the simplest approach to display the first found, first shown. This doesn't mean this initial approach serves something beneficial - which now has been lost - like the current approach do. I don't think using the first found first shown method has to offer anything better compared to the new approach so I dropped this altogether and I see no reason to bring it back (it doesn't fit anyway due to X, X-1 approach).it should list gats in a simple ascending order, like in prerelease 1.
To put it in a different perspective, assume two GATs, lets say GAT #1 and GAT #1000000 that both deliver the maximum hits at a given category.
GAT #1 let's say it can produce 50 hits at X category, so does GAT #1000000. Also lets say we have found another 1000 GATs that also deliver that 50 hits, all these before reaching GAT #1000000. So this latter GAT, will not make it somewhere in the panorama with the initial first found first shown approach.
Additionally GAT#1 besides those 50 hits produces a spread of hits in lower hitting categories down to 0, lets say 20 0-hits, and 20 1-hits. GAT #1000000 produces 0 0-hits and 40-1 hits. With the old aproach you'll see only GAT #1 which obviously does a worse job as a predictive GAT because it has failed in at least 20 draws to pick a winning number. However you'll not have the chance to find out that there is an equal GAT in terms of X category hits that does quite better in lower win divisions. Ultimately this would mean this GAT #1000000 has a better focus overall compared to GAT#1. So, in any way I approach this, I see GAT #1000000 to be better than GAT #1. The old method would propose only GAT#1. The new approach will give you GAT #1000000 and GAT#1 would be surely withdrawn to favor other intermediate GATs that still deliver better overall. I hope you get the point why the original approach was dropped to favor something better. First found first shown is not a better approach, it is just a method used due to lack of more precise selection which is now added.
lottoarchitect