I think you're misunderstanding. This isn't supposed to be about conceptual modeling at all, but as @
Hitei outlined just a description of an interesting deviation from a consistently effectual mathematical model. They're describing an in-universe scientific problem, which I have to say I genuinely really like as a nice way to add some genuine depth to how to these races interact with and model cosmology. One of the relatively few things I like about how the cosmic chart has been handled is that both the Arathi and K'areshi are using actual scientific instruments to investigate their cosmology instead of just bluntly dredging up ideological qualitative information, and the fact that these instruments are imperfect either because they're instrumentalist heuristics or because they're missing some quanta.
If this is supposed to reveal or suggest anything about the cosmic forces beyond that, I'd say it's probably alluding to the Seventh Force—if factored in, the Seventh Force might be what makes murmuration predictable, but the absence of the Seventh Force from K'areshi models leaves murmuration and other theoretical results of its existence apparently random and unexplainable within those models.
The difference between the Arathi and K'areshi models in itself is interesting, since it seems like the Arathi are using a more qualitative, scholastic way of exploring things going off their use of logical proofs, while the K'areshi are using a more quantitative, modern scientific way of exploring things with mathematical models.
I think this is a surprisingly good turn for how the cosmology has been portrayed, and an extreme version of this kind of problem could be used to explore a favorite topic of mine, which is the Instrumentalism/Realism dichotomy—if you're not familiar, scientific realism teaches that science in some way reveals objective "truths" within the universe, while scientific instrumentalism teaches that science only really needs to create models sufficient to explain and adequately predict phenomena without necessarily being essentially "true" (basically, realists think we discover math, instrumentalists think we invent it).