Greetings @ArmchairCryptologist.
Even disregarding all the deficiencies with BIP110 which have been thoroughly elaborated upon elsewhere
No one has yet brought up a reasonable technical objection to BIP-110.
I have no faith whatsoever in those numbers being representative of anything but a handful of people spinning up nodes to pad the numbers.
While it is true that support is difficult to gauge only from node counts, it would be foolish to claim that node counts don’t matter at all, especially given BIP-110’s overwhelming popularity among node operators, who have taken to social media in droves to post claims, and often screenshots, of their operation of the activation client. The fact that 4 BIP110-signaling blocks were mined in March alone is also a strong indicator that BIP-110 is rapidly gaining support.
So 16 out of 1167 nodes are advertising BIP110 in the subver, or 1.4%. Assuming that all nodes have an equal number of outgoing connections and an equal chance to connect to any of my nodes, this statistically gives a greater than 99% confidence that the real number is between 0.5% and 2.3%.
All of the services I know of that count different node software have much higher estimates than this. Forgive me if I am skeptical of your statistics here, especially since you are openly opposed to BIP-110.
There is a reason soft forks are activated by mining power alone; node listen counts will always be suspect, and unlike node sockpuppeting, mining power cannot be falsified.
Miners are not in charge of Bitcoin, as was demonstrated during the 2017 block size war. The nodes are in charge, and node operators are speaking in favor of BIP-110. I expect BIP-110 to activate early via the threshold, following Segwit’s 2017 example.