Ah. Thanks WinD. That clarifies much for me.
If I had been filtering using your categories… gosh, maybe I would have focused upon that 555! All those aspects you list, indeed make it sound like it should have been on short lists. Must get savvier with my systems (and learn how to navigate those complex Excel files: are there tutorials anywhere, winsumlosesum?).
Now, I've noticed, that roughly slightly less than 50% of the time, when it comes to singles, the game draws all its digits contained within the last five (combined) draws; roughly slightly less than 50%, it draws two digits from the last five; and a minority of the time, it draws only one digit from the last five.
When it comes to Doubles, it always (or, so close as to be definitional as "always") either pulls both digits from the last five, or one from the last five… but never both from six plays or more out. So, if 1, 2, and 3 were all out for 6+ plays, and a double were due, you could safely discard all doubles encompassing 123 (112, 223, etc.)
These are examples of what is, what must be; you could call them, rules of the game. Nothing has to be that way, in a perfectly random universe—but it is that way, as analysis reveals. So, it must be part of the algorithmic formula (as in the California D3). Mark one off on the "Discovered Secret Rules" list.
Then there's the "due" aspects: a 5 is due, a double is due, a certain root sum is due, etc.
The problem with "dues," is that they're the only* visible aspect to studying players… and to the game itself. If it's so designed (the secret algorithm again?) to create layers of "dues," and lure players away chasing them… it can do some nice damage. But the problem with avoiding all "dues," is that the entire playing field becomes level—there, all a strategist can do, is blindly choose; like rolling one die for the first time. So are layers of "dues" like rolling that single die, too—sifting through six "dues" for the right one, for example, is no different than blindly rolling a six-sided die?
My approach has been how to best meld what is, i.e., what must be, with what is due. The perfect intersection of those two… should be the sweet spot.
*A "trend" (negative or positive) could be argued as not being a due aspect, that a player can nevertheless utilize strategically. But to me, a trend is just a due by another name; since any manifesting trend, is the long-term "due" playing out in real time (i.e., over successive plays—no such thing as a single hit "trend"), as opposed to a one-pop "due."