Hi -
I'm familiar with point group 32 and actually ran the program with both indexings, which unexpectedly came up with roughly the same R-free (irony: the incorrect indexing was marginally better). Mea culpa for not using my standard m.o. of comparing datasets using CCP4's SCALEIT.
Maybe the wrong place to preach the POINTLESS gospel, but its very nice for comparing datasets (unmerged if you prefer) and forcing consistent indexing in CCP4.
Auto-reindexing might be a time-saving feature (especially in point group 3) but should be consistent w/ and w/o twinning enabled and needs to be much more prominently advertised in the output, and a new MTZ file written.
Isn't it also a "philosophical" issue? How far should refinement programs go with this? I would rather have a 52% twin fraction, so I go and re-index myself after seeing this (if you like ccp4 reindex is good for it, and I strongly suspect there a single line command to do it using cctbx) rather than this being done automagically and me ending up submitting the wrong combination of files to the PDB (final model and 'scaled' data from before reindexing ...). Anyway - I am happy that at least one person had the 52% twin - we had it a few years ago and it was fun to realize what was going on (in P21) A.