I guess this thread becomes a bracer discussion after all...
So Wanda's personal decision not to engage the tower immediately isn't counted by the bracer in the odds of Wanda taking the tower. But Wanda's personal decision to spill the beans to Queen Bea was taken into account when Charlie asked for the odds of benefiting from handing in his remaining calculations.
No, that personal decision wouldn't have been taken into account either.
It COULD, however, have taken into account the various ways that the information could have been discovered, and would have noted that when there's a huge horde of units rampaging around, with their chief Warlord considering himself an evangelist for a divine calling, that sometime within the subsequent campaign information was likely to slip out in a myriad of ways. (Captured unit. Parley with Ansom. A scout seeing decryption happen.) It could also have taken into account what it knew the information could be used for.
I see no consistency here. At the very least, Parson would have to be a fool not to follow up his first calculation with a second one, namely "What are the odds that Slately will die this turn?" He has no limit on the number of calculations he can run, so why didn't he ask? Also, consider something else from that page. Parson says killing Slately would disband Jetstone, or cause them to convert - he doesn't know which. Well, why not ask the bracer what would happen and find out?
Bracer probably doesn't know either.
You keep assuming that bracer has all this information. It doesn't. It takes information you already haves and figures out probabilities from it. If nobody in GK knows how the rules work in some instance, then the bracer won't know either.
(Likewise, the question of "will Slately croak this turn" is kind of useless, because the probability it gives depends on what Parson does. Parson had JUST asked it about the success rate of different scenarios; asking "will Slately croak" would be equivalent to asking the bracer to predict what strategy GK will follow - kind of useless, given that the whole point is for Parson to PICK which strategy to follow based on which one is the best.)
As I said before, I think the bracers either suffer from plot device syndrome, or Parson has (correctly) decided they cannot be relied upon to answer such speculative questions.
EDIT: Or Parson realized that the bracers could be used to effectively predict the future, but can't grasp that knowing the future would be helpful. I find that explanation unlikely.
No, I think there's a straightforward way of interpreting the bracer that has none of those things. I believe the following explanation is consistent with everything we've seen:
The bracer does mathamancy, not predictamancy or lookamancy. It has the following knowledge:
1) Basic rules knowledge, the sort of thing "everybody" is popped knowing. (Except Parson.)
2) Access to anything Parson knows.
Neither of these are game-breaking knowledge or strange. (1) is the thing all Erfworld denizens start with, (2) is pretty straightforward natural thinkamancy, it makes sense for an item to know its wearer.
However, the bracer does unparalleled mathamancy
. It can run scenarios instantly; in a situation where lots of possibilities are there, it can instantly run every single one and then average them; it can do this not just for straightforward battle questions, but about any question.
Since it doesn't have access to privileged information, giving it MORE information gives more accurate results. When Wanda told Parson what she found out from Ossomer, the probabilities changed. In cases where the calculation is easy, Parson can sort of intuit the result anyway. "Odds are about 3 to 2... yeah, 60% says the bracer." Also, if there's critical information that Parson is missing but doesn't know he's missing, it'll give misleading results. (If there's missing information, but Parson KNOWS there's missing information, it'll be able to take that into account, and give answers which aren't very precise but still useful.)
This interpretation is
(1) Consistent with how Parson uses the bracer.
(2) Consistent with the sort of things mathamancy seems like it should do, and prevents the bracer from being used for lookamancy rather than mathamancy.
Yes, it is a plot device... but the purpose of the plot device isn't to tip the scales at arbitrary times, it's to provide a justification for Parson being confident that the scenarios he runs are correct. We don't have Stanley (or the readers) questioning "70%??? you're crazy, and probably wrong."
If you can come up with a different explanation for the way the bracer works, go ahead; but I think this one is consistent with everything we've seen and doesn't make Parson out to be stupid or missing the possibilities of the bracer.