An outstanding absurd requires a proof reading.
The Papua New Guinea 10 toeas KM#4 gives in Comments:

though in Mintage section:

Note. Obviously the percentage is from wrongly described occurrence of lines and has nothing to do with frequency as it expected to be. This is not the case of this topic and in this post onwards this nonsense will be omitted.
Most probably one interpreted original documents wrongly, or just made a typo or just wished a reader to enjoy the approved fake.
Is it possible to make the article at least self-consistent? At the moment it is a primary school math absurd.