110100100000
110010010000
110001001000
110000000000
101100000100
101010000010
101001000001
101000000000
The first column is a common intercept, the 2nd and 3rd are group designation (the 3rd being the first redundant column, the zeros in the 2nd have already coded for this group). Columns 4-6 are time, 7-9 are the group by time interaction, and unnecessary columns 10-12 are the group by time interaction for the second group...that wouldn't be there if the analyst were paying better attention. Nonetheless, I ran this model and then noticed the mistake...disclaimer: the DM I'm working with is 200x200 which makes it a little easier to make this kind of mistake

11100100
11010010
11001001
11000000
10100000
10010000
10001000
10000000
Where column 1 is the common intercept, c2 the group designation, c3-5 time, and c6-8 the group by time interaction.
When I compared the results of these two models and noticed the the number of parameters were the same and I figured that MARK just accounted for the redundant columns, but the deviance were markedly different. When I did the same on a different data set (also Brownie et al. recoveries) both the number of parameters and the deviances were identical. What would cause this inconsistency?
Kiel