So what exactly is this "often overlooked technique"? Making assumptions based on patterns? Cause let me just say, that does NOT make a puzzle "logical". I shouldn't have to make any assumptions when solving a true hanjie puzzle. This is not fully logical, and therefor it is not a hanjie.
Yep, the cells in the pattern are large ambiguous spots with 3 possible solutions. And there's another dual ambiguous part in the corner. All of those together give this puzzle 3*3*3*3*2 = 72 different logical solutions. The correct formations are easy to guess in the end though.
Logical except last 2 dots. Surprisingly satisfying pattern to solve. The large "ambiguous" dots are not ambiguous. They are easily solved with temporaries. If you put there L-shaped dot formations, you are not having enough dots there! They are logical!