What you get wrong is the whole of my argument. You focus on out-of-context minutia. To summarize for you one last time.
I. A single, non-replicated experiment proves nothing scientifically. IOW, the MBA is interesting but just that, nothing else.
II. The normal way one would evaluate a claim about water loss from an open bucket is to examine the evaporation potential as a possible primary cause.
a.) The easily found equation to do this is the 'swimming pool equation' (SPE)
b.) There are several important variables in the SPE.
i. Some are known at least to a good approximation, such as bucket size, cell size, cell contents
ii. Some are not, such as air flow over the bucket, actual water temperature, time profile of that
iii. Some are inconsistent with other information (>100C, but no boiling)
c.) A parametric study to evaluate the impact of the variables and to compare to available information is useful
III. The parametric study confirmed the need for certain missing information
IV. The report of the incident is anomalous and unresolvable without further replication and better data