fix(analysis): address the two review nits

The re-review returned APPROVED with two low-severity notes.

- The prose said "Across 15 finished brews", which reads as though there
  are only 15 brews.  It now says "Across 15 of 16 finished brews", so the
  exclusion is visible in the sentence itself and not only in the card
  header.

- `/api/runs/<run_id>` did not carry the `suspect` flag that
  `/api/runs` does, so a consumer of the detail endpoint could not tell an
  impossible run from a good one.  It does now, with a test.

134 tests.

src/flask/templates/analysis.html

@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@
     </div>
     <div class="card__body">
         <p>
-            Across {{ stats.trusted_count }} finished brews the attenuation averages
+            Across {% if stats.suspect_count %}{{ stats.trusted_count }} of {{ stats.count }}{% else %}{{ stats.count }}{% endif %} finished brews the attenuation averages
             <strong>{{ stats.consistency.mean }}%</strong>, with a standard
             deviation of <strong>{{ stats.consistency.stdev }} percentage
             points</strong> and a total range of {{ stats.consistency.spread }}

src/flask/views/brews.py

@@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ def api_run(run_id: str):
     summary = run_summary(run, og_override=meta.get("og_points"))
     summary["canonical_name"] = meta.get("name") or run.display_name()
     summary["tap_number"] = meta.get("tap_number")
+    # The same flag the list endpoint carries, so a consumer of the detail
+    # endpoint can tell an impossible run from a good one.
+    summary["suspect"] = bool(implausible_runs([run]))
     return jsonify(summary)