If that is the discontinuity you're referring to, well I must say to me it doesn't look like a discontinuity, but rather just a camouflage splodge.
I understand where the logic comes from, but the problem is that from this near frontal angle we shouldn't actually be able to see the taper of the dorsal intake that clearly -- the taper should be mostly obscured by the front of the dorsal intake and dorsal fuselage.
If we look at the perspective lines running front to rear (drawn out in your image as well, based on the weapons bay door lines, which I've also done and duplicated at various parts of the aircraft such that they all run parallel to each other), it somewhat demonstrates just how much of the "rear" of the aircraft we really shouldn't be able to see from this angle -- including the "taper" of the rear part of the dorsal intake blending back into the fuselage.
My view is that the "inconsistencies of the camouflage splotches are a combination of:
- not having seen the aircraft from this angle before
- camouflage inherently being difficult to make sense of, especially in absence of high resolution images of a three dimensional model that already exist
- possible image artefact due to digital zoom or built in AI enhancement causing a degree of fuzziness
I don't actually disagree with much of what you've depicted in your annotations except for the part about the dorsal fuselage/intake -- you've depicted it too symmetrically, whereas from the angle it should look more like this: (my line for overall aircraft silhouette in green)
===
I think this image can depict what I mean most clearly -- with the yellow highlighted bits being the approximate part of the dorsal intake on the new frontal aspect image, corresponding with the side image.
