That's a fairly spot on breakdown. The key thing is that the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's goal is "resolution", so they'll be focusing on cases they can resolve. Some of these cases are "resolved" if they can be partially replicated.

Take for example the Eglin UAP sighting, which AARO was able to replicate "some aspects" of with a commercial lighting balloon. "AARO conducted extensive testing using one of these balloons and found it could replicate some aspects of the pilot’s account." Because of that, the case is marked as "resolved" with "moderate" confidence.

They didn't confirm if any of these lighting balloons had been lost. And, while these balloons are powered by cable, AARO concluded that they could have been adapted to use a battery. Though, that would also limit their time powered and make it easier to pinpoint the source of a lost balloon. But, because some elements could be replicated by making adjustments to a physically similar object they were able to "resolve" the sighting.

Even with that approach to resolution, they still have unexplained anomalous events. And, it's completely understandable that there will be cases they can't explain or can't admit to publicly. However, their attempts to dismiss the truly anomalous events have been disingenuous.

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/case_resolution_reports/Case_Resolution_of_Eglin_UAP_2_508_.pdf

That is categorically false. In order to qualify as an unknown flying object, it needs to be 1) an object, 2) flying and 3) unknown. So if I throw a pen into the air and you don't know what it is that I've launched - bam - UFO.