Twenty-four possible answers against 3^3 = 27 outcome sequences leaves just enough room, and four against four splits those answers into exactly 8, 8 and 8. Six against six always tips, so it wastes the level outcome and leaves twelve answers for nine remaining sequences, which makes halving impossible rather than merely slow. The counting argument bounds outcome sequences rather than strategies, so it rules out every adaptive continuation at once, and the explicit schedule closes the positive half.
Requiring the fifty-fifty at every amount you could open forces the weights to satisfy f(x) = f(x/2)/2, whose only solutions are proportional to 1/x, and that integrates to infinity at both ends. Conditional on the pair, the swap gains the smaller amount or loses it with equal chance, which is zero and needs no assumption at all. The article carries a proper spread where the conditional answer is genuinely x/2, and the infinite-mean spread where swapping really is right at every observable amount.
Sorting the list finds the gap and is merely wasteful, which is why the article says so rather than striking it out. The subtraction works because 5050 is a closed form available before the list is read, and the two conditions carrying it are distinctness and a known range. The article adds the duplicate-hunting mirror image, the sum-of-squares route when two values are absent, and the exclusive-or accumulator for when the total would overflow.
The long hand turns 6 degrees a minute and the short one half a degree, so a 90 degree gap closes at 5.5 degrees a minute and the hands coincide 180/11 minutes past three, at 3:16:21.8181. At 3:15 the long hand has reached the 3 and the short hand is 7.5 degrees ahead of it, which is the whole content of the wrong answer. Consecutive coincidences are 720/11 minutes apart, so there are eleven per twelve hours and twenty-two per day, and the common phrasing "eleven times a day" is wrong by a factor of two.