Very fun to read the latest posts. Great work with the diagrams ronk!
It is also interesting to see how techniques that gets expanded start to overlap existing techniques, specially how the latest mutant fish and grouped x-cycles now seem to almost completely converge.
It looks to me as if the "new" fish will be able to pick up on any grouped-x-cycle, simply because there will only ever be able to exist one (grouped) strong link in each sector (box, row, column) (=base sectors), and every "linking-point" between each strong link will be your cover sector. The two "end-points" of the chain can either both be concidered fins (sashimi), or one of them concidered a cover sector and the other a fin.
I would therefore like to introduce the concept of a "true" fish. Because now fish can explain all known x-cycles, but x-cycles can NOT describe every type of fish. The classic 3*3 sworfish with all its bits (vertices) is a great example of something grouped-x-cyles can NOT explain. In fact, any fish that has a base-sector that can NOT be concidered a strong or grouped strong link would fall outside what x-cycles can do, and this is why I like fish so much, because they actually add something completely unique to the sudoku solving-pool! I therefore suggest to somehow brand these unique creatures to tell the world that the elimination you are about to witness can only be done by fish.
As far as I can tell, the simplest way to make this definiton would be to say:
Any fish that has one or more base sectors that can not be concidered a grouped strong link is a true fish.
with the definition of a grouped strong link being:
If you can cover all occurences of one candidate in one sector with exactly two other sectors, you have a grouped strong link
This would mean that an X-wing would never be a True Fish, since all known x-wing-types can be expressed as a (grouped) x-cycle.
This would not at all be to diminish the value of all the none-true fish, but I just think that these very special creatures deserves a distinction!
Havard