I doubt you would have considered the scientific methodology of dealing with the null hypothesis. As my esteeemed colleague has explained to you. We know the effect of the cannister but do not know how exactly this occurs.
The information upon the distrubition is not available as we have the number of strikes but not a clear distribution that would only come from looking at the targets with indication of the different strikes. There is no data upon what happened to those parts that missed.
There are different constructions of cannister and would operate in different manner. The British case shot seem to have acted as follows. The wooden and in some cases metal base acted as a piston assisting in the expelling of the balls hence the limited range described. The French cannister had a solid bottom which means that this would have to be perferated first. Austrian cannister shows another design with a smaller base than the closed tube so may have acted more efficiently.
There are plenty of period comments upon the unreliability of cannister. Many countries had a very low allowance of cannister yet the engagement ranges were within those of cannister and used shot.
The discussion and that is what it is, was to explore this area to see if there was a better understanding upon the mechanism. The word rupture has been used but there has been no definition as to what this was and how. What happened to the tin cannister? It does not just evaporate in the tube. Tin oxides are not volatile and a calculation of the amount of tin would seriously build up.
Yes I have looked at nearly all the artillery manuals and the questions here are left unanswered.