@lovepreaks

Do you have a defined probability model for pattern transitions—particularly from asymmetric to symmetric (A→S) or symmetric to asymmetric (S→A)?
For example, is a 0.75 probability for A→S transitions a reasonable estimate?

Since we need to place two bets to define the asymmetry (if the first bet was lost), yes we'll expect A to get a 0.75 p, so the A/S ratio should be 3:1.
That's in theory because in many RNG productions the number of S is way higher than 0.25(!).

Nonetheless S status is more frequent but tend to change faster than at other shufflings.
Maybe betting A-A one time is the safest pattern to look for, then betting A after S-S.
 

Given that the same P/B sequence can sometimes generate multiple A/B outcomes, what specific rule or method do you use to assign A or B in those ambiguous cases?


Not sure if I intendend well your question.
Derived roads are still the simplest way to get A/B sub successions, as you know well only long streaks will make every random walk to be homogeneously shaped.

When in doubt to bet between two or more lines, I'm not betting at all. Anyway as a general rule of thumb I'll prefer the line presenting a triple and not singles and/or doubles.
Moreover the line featuring many streaks and few singles do not elicit any first bet (that would be a sudden win).
So the line that collected more first winning bets than second winning bets is priviliged.
Then there are other considerations to be made.   

When identifying a potential betting spot, does the row position on the tote board (e.g., first row vs. deeper rows) affect your confidence or decision-making?
If so, how do you weigh that spatial factor?


Space distribution of the outcomes is the most important tool to master IMO.
It's the CFS working at different velocities but with a kind of "average steps".
 
I know a couple of successful players adopting a pure anti-streak game (so basically toward a positive CF speed) capable to get rid of many long unfavourable streaks by making considerations about how hands went in that specific (so far short) streak.
They start to consider betting only from row #2 or #3, sometimes even #4 so the shoe is halved or  quartered or even more reduced. Then only three or four bets are placed. 


How were the five betting trigger patterns developed and tested?
Were they based on statistical simulations, real shoe analysis, or other forms of data modeling?


We have never utilized simulators, just real live shoes listed by different forms of shuffling. We own a casino's shuffling machine too.   

Beyond the five primary triggers, have you developed any secondary filters or conditions to avoid high-risk zones or long losing streaks?

There are 4/5 different strategies we currently use and of course we try to adopt the ones performing best at the actual shoe.

Unfortunately losing streaks happen and MUST happen.
We are sure to play with an edge but nobody knows how the actual shoe is arranged. That's why we make very few bets and play a lot of shoes.

We try to avoid to play at tie rich shoes or when many hands are resolved by 6 cards (it's the same math concept).

Another tool we look for is the number of naturals happening so far.
We prefer to face an average value of them (around 1/3 of total hands as you know).

Take care!

as.