10,000 rolls would be way more than needed. All of the google first page results for searching "representative sample size" say that ~400 data points is perfectly fine for 95% confidence of a 5% margin of error.
200 data points (@Niara's sample) is adequate for 7% margin of error or only 85% confidence.
Niara is claiming an internal pattern within the data, that somehow each number rolled is dependent on the rolls before it.
It would require many more data points to demonstrate that claim as you are trying to attach significance on mini-runs within the larger sample of data.
Using representative sample size as you are referring to is only meaningful when examining the full data such as with the average of the data points.
According to Niara's own spreadsheet BG3's dice rolling demonstrates the same randomness as the other games as the averages on the spreadsheet shows.(with 85% confidence.)
To demonstrate that BG3 sequence has unique internal patterns the person making the claim would need to do a large number, say 10,000 rolls for each game and then show that the patterns that show up in BG3 data don't show up in any other data.
Alternatively they could just make up conspiracy theories based on insufficient data and imagined patterns.
