I like it, but if I am interpreting your “quasi-math” analysis correctly, the most truthful events according to your equation are those that happen the least often and the least unreliably (that is to say the most rarely and the most reliably).
I would say that the most truth tends to be attributed to those events that are the most common and the most reliable. This would only require that S’s definition be changed to “whatever counts as ‘rare’” but P’s definition can stay the same.
The issue with the interpretation of psychic ability is that due to the expected selection bias in the face of uncanny coincidence, the frequency and reliability is overstated in the mind of the person who witnessed the kind of event that lends itself to the interpretation of being a result of psychic abilities by certain susceptible people. In their minds, both S and P are lower than if the events were analysed more objectively, enough such that there seems to be some truth to them, when in reality the events occur no more often and reliably than statistical chance within the expected bell-curve.
On the contrary, it’s all too easy to make some sense of it in fantastical ways. Most people are not capable to deal with it or even begin to make sense out of it in realistic ways. It’s like the explanation of “God” rather than quantifying phenomena and equating concepts mathematically. The latter is harder but you can actually use it in your real life, making it realistic and not fantasy, which just feels nice.
It depends on your definition of reality.
As in my above response to Carleas, anything that seems significant and can be analysed objectively and shown not to be more significant than random chance is unrealistic. Psychic abilities have never been shown to be more significant than random chance, and not for lack of trying!
Now, psychics will often rationalise this as the conditions of scientific experiments giving off “bad vibes” and “blocking their connection” - invalidating the same conditions that allowed humans to build computers, the internet, vehicles, skyscrapers etc. whether or not bad vibes are given off or any connection to a psychic world has been blocked.
And mystics will often claim that some truths can be hidden within what has been written off as random chance and are intrinsically not frequent in their nature and thus not analysable in the only ways of which we “yet” know how to reliably judge the reality. Somehow they just “know” such things to be real despite not conforming to objective testing, meaning they have a different criteria for what constitutes reality, which is conveniently only available to them - and perhaps a chosen few who turn out to be the most susceptible to suggestion upon further investigation.
A pre-requisite of communicating a definition of reality is that it can be meaningfully transferred to the mind of another rational person without issue, so by all means “give pause” to definitions of reality that can’t be communicated to rational minds without issue, but appreciate the (what I have just explained to be by definition) insurmountable conundrum that you have opened your mind to if you choose to do so.