As long as they are not generated in order that should still make the order random though. I can’t really explain the clustering in the graphs then though. Unless these errors aren’t caused by missing data, but by slowdown on the node itself. But in this case I believe missing data was what caused the errors.
I think @SGC meant that it didn’t require 40% data loss to be disqualified before. Personally I would consider that part of the problem with the old system. The threshold had to be that low because of the erratic score behavior, not because 40% data loss was actually allowed to survive. It became way too much a game of chance rather than a clear cut off of what’s acceptable. The new scores still have a small margin of chance but it dropped from a 20% range to a 2% range (roughly). So while the old system suggested that up to 40% loss was acceptable, anything beyond 5% loss could in some cases lead to disqualification after a long time. The new system may suggest 4% loss is ok, but anything beyond 2% loss is dangerous. That seems much more reasonable to me.
In the end I think the reasons were clearly outlined in the linked topic and in my summary here. So @SGC have a look at that summary and if something is still not clear as to why this was chosen, maybe you can be more specific?
), the Github 
Storj” T-shirt ?