As you know, I already did a similar review of transactions on ctv-signet in 2022. There wasn’t anything there that made it seem like it would be worth the time to do another review.
The point isn’t to find another instance of “number go up”, it’s to see if there’s been any testing of the code, or any experimentation to see if the hypothesised use cases are implementable in the real world.
For things that are interesting to people, you do see real experimentation on signet. For example, there’s about 60k inscriptions, about 1000 runes, and babylon’s test runs “filled” quite a few blocks, leading to an apparently successful (and comparatively less disruptive) mainnet launch (and, TIL, followup).
It similarly won’t catch CTV invocations that aren’t executed because they’re in unrevealed taproot branches, or in presigned child transactions that are never broadcast. The point of having a test environment is that you can test the rare cases to make sure they behave correctly just in case the rare case happens in real life some day; and if you do that, there will be example transactions where those paths are exercised. Nobody’s saying you have to do that testing on signet, of course.