Video games are known to cheat a lot, usually in the player's favor. The Tetris randomizer for instance is well documented. Early games drew pieces truly randomly, but now, the standard is to draw randomly from a bag of all 7 pieces until it is empty, then repeat, limiting flood and draught. Along the way, other algorithms have been used with the same purpose.
But sometimes, even the numbers are fake, for example, a 95% success rate may be closer to 99% in reality because it matches more closely what players feel 95% should be like.
I'm assuming I either hit an PRNG bug (after all, I encountered a compiler bug in university already), or more likely, that I simply imagined the issue or bad bad luck with the data. Never did a statistical analysis after all.
In [1] it says that numbers have a 0.5034 probability of being odd due to rounding errors in the algorithm that picks a number in a range, which is unacceptable for a simulation, but may actually be better than a real coin toss [2]. The raw RNG is also flawed but not that badly [3]
[1] https://fuglede.dk/en/blog/bias-in-net-rng/
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04153
[3] https://gist.github.com/fuglede/772402ecc3997ada82a03ce65361...
Turns out, the company wanting the game got scarred of some patent that invoked the word random, so we had to reprogram the thing essentially do the same as that player. We had multiple sequences of randomized questions, and the game pick one of the sequences to play back in order when started.