The key insight I kept circling around was: a task can only be eliminated by one with strictly more bots, so any task that isn't strictly dominated by another has a shot.
Model the process as a tournament where a task can win if its bot count is at least the maximum of all other tasks, or if it can absorb smaller tasks to eventually exceed the maximum. Sort tasks by bot count and check if the cumulative sum of smaller tasks plus the current task's bots is at least the next larger task's bots, iterating from smallest to largest. Tasks that can reach the maximum bot count through such absorption are possible winners.
Pro tip: Clarify that ties are broken randomly, so a task with equal bots to the current maximum can also win if it gets favorable tie-breaks; this often trips candidates who assume strict inequality.
A task can be the last survivor if there exists a sequence of merges where it eventually absorbs all others. This requires that at some point, it can become the largest by absorbing smaller tasks.
Sort the tasks in ascending order of bots. This helps in analyzing which tasks can be absorbed to build up strength.
Iterate through sorted tasks, maintaining the cumulative sum of bots of tasks that can be absorbed. A task can be a possible winner if its bots plus the sum of all smaller tasks is at least the bots of the next larger task, allowing it to eventually absorb all larger tasks.
Any task that can reach the maximum bot count through absorption (including ties) is a possible winner. Collect their original 1-based indices and return them in ascending order.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.