Most notes of this type have an origin reference

Question

7.6 has a new feature in the basic checks. In some projects footnotes have footnote reference fields, marked with the \fr marker. For example:
"\f + \fr 5.1: \fq we have; \ft some manuscripts have \fq let us have.\f*"

In others, the \fr field is skipped, for example:
\f + \fq we have; \ft some manuscripts have \fq let us have.\f*

In 7.6 the basic checks for markers now counts whether most footnotes in your project have \fr fields, and warns you if a note is outside the usual pattern. If most notes have a \fr field, the check will say “Most notes of this type have an origin reference,” for notes that do not have a \fr field. If most notes do not have \fr fields, it will flag the ones that do, saying “Most notes of this type do not have an origin reference.” This is just a statistical warning, assuming that you would want to be consistent throughout the project.

I was curious if Paratext has a range where if the two are almost equally common, where it will not flag presence or absense of \fr fields, but this does not seem to be the case. I took a test project with 25 footnotes. When 13 of them had \fr fields, the other 12 were flagged “most notes of this type have an origin reference.” When I removed one \fr field, so there were 12 notes with \fr and 13 without, the check flagged the twelve notes without as suspect.

It turns out if there are an even number of footnotes, and the same number have \fr as do not, Paratext flags the ones without an \fr field. I suppose we can consider having the \fr as the default, since Paratext inserts a \fr with appropriate reference when you use the Insert Footnote command.