How do mulligans work if a player discovers sideboard card in their opening hand?

Let us call the player Alesha and assume that her first hand of seven cards contains two sideboard cards (with no copies of these cards in the main deck).

- Alesha chooses either to keep her five remaining cards, or to draw six new cards. (Even though her hand contains less than seven cards, she did not mulligan yet. If she does, it will be her first mulligan, so she draws six cards).
- Alesha chooses either to keep her five remaining cards, or to draw five new cards. (The fix “counts as a mulligan”, as would be the case for a mulligan Procedure Error, so a mulligan would be her second mulligan).
- Alesha chooses either to keep her five remaining cards, or to draw four new cards. (Alesha's hand contains five cards; if she mulligans, she draws one less card).

If Alesha chooses to keep her five remaining cards, does she get a Vancouver scry?

The last option feels harsher than the older version, which seems weird. It can be argued that, in the majority of cases, Alesha will have only one sideboard card in hand, in which case the new fix is the same as the old fix. Note however that two sideboard cards in the opening hand is not a once-in-a-blue-moon scenario, but something that will happen to players with some regularity.

The second option is the closest to the old fix. In his article, Toby only mentions making the old fix more generic, not changing the one we already have for the beginning of the game, so this could be an “intentionalist” interpretation. However, this is not currently supported by the text of the IPG.

The first option feels very lenient. There is something to be said for “only as punishing as needed to prevent the possibility of abuse”, but that may be too forgiving.

Toughts?

Locked this, because (a) it duplicates this thread, (b) to avoid unofficial answers, and © for the same reasons I locked that other thread.

I'll post an answer to that other thread.

d:^D