The entry examines why familiar ways of aggregating welfare can rank an enormous population of barely worthwhile lives above a smaller flourishing population. It reviews several responses, including alternative rankings and questions about measurement, comparability, and consistency across a sequence of possible populations.
The thought experiment relies on positive but low welfare in the larger population, rather than on a population of uniformly negative lives. That detail explains why adding enough lives can increase the total. It also separates the conclusion from an ordinary claim that suffering is desirable. Keep total, average, and distribution visible on your sketch, and identify which property each proposed theory treats as decisive. This makes the source of the uncomfortable ranking explicit.