Thank you George, this is precisely what’s happening.
Again–it doesn’t have to work this way, this is just the logical outcome of wanting to associate derived data with the studies/cases they’re linked to. Because we’re working at an instance level with our data, where the derived and original records of a given study or case aren’t unified in one another’s attribute values (because why would they be–they’re different records, after all), we get some weird numbers and lists when we want to count on something other than instance records.
This is is why Ulrika and Justin asked us what we planned to do; it’s a thorny problem with no obvious answer, beyond ‘decide and document’.