@@ -207,11 +207,14 @@ files afterward. It covered two workloads (A: the `COMPUTE`/`IF` program above;
 B: `RECODE`), create versus pre-provisioned replace, 100 versus 100,000 cases,
 and both `apply_transformation_plan_in_place` and `apply_spss_in_place`. Each
 cell had one counted fresh apply, one fresh warm-up, and five fresh timed
-applies; create/replace order alternated by repetition. Both sizes repeated
-this input cycle in order:
-`(1,1)`, `(1,NULL)`, `(NULL,1)`, `(0,1)`, `(2,2)`, `(0.1,0)`, `(-9,1)`,
-`(NULL,0)`. Each fixture had numeric `source_a` and `source_b`; `source_a`
-carried label `Source A` and missing rule `99`, while `source_b` carried label
+applies; create/replace order alternated by repetition. Each counted,
+warm-up, and timed apply started from a newly created fixture database; no
+apply reused a database from another trial. Rows were generated by cycling
+this input sequence in order: `(1,1)`, `(1,NULL)`, `(NULL,1)`, `(0,1)`,
+`(2,2)`, `(0.1,0)`, `(-9,1)`, `(NULL,0)`. Thus the 100-row runs used 12 full
+cycles plus the first four rows of a cycle, while the 100,000-row runs used
+12,500 full cycles. Each fixture had numeric `source_a` and `source_b`; `source_a` carried
+label `Source A` and missing rule `99`, while `source_b` carried label
 `Source B` and no missing rule. Replace fixtures added one nullable numeric
 ordinal-3 target (`target` for A, `band` for B) with label `Old target`, `F4.0`
 formats, ordinal measurement level, and missing rule `99`; create fixtures had