Quote:
I have another question.
Some k's like 8331405 have 14 primes in the top5000 from n=198433k.
Others I have searched n=187300k and found 0 top5000 primes. It looks
like the # of primes found in 010k isn't always a good predictor of larger primes (unless the range happens to hit the arbitrarily large gaps between primes...).
Any pointers here?

Yes, the # of primes, is not always a good predictor of larger candidates.
Nash weight, or Proth weight is also not always a good predictor.
I am including an new option in RMA, that hunts outwards(over under) from the predicted area until a prime is found. Then a new prediction is made based on past data (kn prime) and existing weights, and testing resumes from there. Although a simple idea, it is faily complex to implement, and will skip a small # primes.
Although I should add that we are just making sand castles, as the tide comes in.