Editing Openai/6941035e-e574-800c-b77c-58298f5c4b70 (section)

=== Assistant: Likely yes ===
Likely yes

Yes. If “combatants” is defined as all members of armed groups killed, then the actual number is plausibly higher than the number of combatants who can be individually named.

Reasoning:
# Named ≠ total killed Naming requires prior intelligence, recovery of remains, or post-hoc confirmation. Many combatants killed in airstrikes, tunnel collapses, or secondary explosions will not be identifiable by name.
# Identification asymmetry Militaries can reliably name: - High-value targets - Known operatives under surveillance - Fighters whose deaths are later confirmed by their organisation These categories capture only a subset of total combatant deaths.
# Structural undercounting Combatants who are: - Low-level or newly recruited - Killed alongside civilians - Buried without recovery are unlikely to be named individually, even if correctly classified as fighters in aggregate estimates.
# Standard military practice Modern forces typically report: - Named kills (confirmed identities) - Estimated kills (probabilistic assessments) The second category is always larger than the first in high-intensity conflicts.
# Implication for percentages If public figures cite “X named fighters killed,” that figure should be treated as a lower bound, not a ceiling, for total combatant fatalities.

Important limitation:
This does not imply that the combatant share approaches a majority, nor does it resolve disputes over civilian vs combatant ratios. It only supports the narrower claim that the true number of combatants killed is likely higher than the number that can be individually identified by name.