Edit: (Although the 99% correct/1% wrong you give are the wrong figures, I wonder if I should retract this comment...)
Yes, “odd” is the correct answer, and you seem to have arrived at it by updateless analysis of the decision problem (without making logical assumptions about which answer is correct, only considering possible observations) which I disclaimed about in the last paragraph.
The question that the post poses, using this thought experiment, is not which answer is correct (we already have necessary tools to reliably tell), but what is the nature of observational knowledge, which apparently fails in this thought experiment but is a crucial element of most other reasoning, and in what sense logical knowledge is different.
(Note that this analysis doesn’t face any under-specification problems that too many of the other commenters complained about without clearly explaining what examples of relevant ambiguity remain.)
Edit: (Although the 99% correct/1% wrong you give are the wrong figures, I wonder if I should retract this comment...)
Yes, “odd” is the correct answer, and you seem to have arrived at it by updateless analysis of the decision problem (without making logical assumptions about which answer is correct, only considering possible observations) which I disclaimed about in the last paragraph.
The question that the post poses, using this thought experiment, is not which answer is correct (we already have necessary tools to reliably tell), but what is the nature of observational knowledge, which apparently fails in this thought experiment but is a crucial element of most other reasoning, and in what sense logical knowledge is different.
(Note that this analysis doesn’t face any under-specification problems that too many of the other commenters complained about without clearly explaining what examples of relevant ambiguity remain.)