collateral damage assessment question

So they ran the CDA, and it seemed to be a probability vs distance map. "90% chance of death in this ring, 70% in this ring, 50% in this ring..." At the time, there were about 20 people milling about in the street/danger zones. Everyone was all clear to bomb away.

At no point did I hear any reference to an "expected death count." It was all about % risk in a zone.

Later the street is empty, a girl enters the outer ring, and a new CDA is ordered by the bomber. What would change in the CDA? The probability/distance map is the same. The number of civilians in the danger zone has decreased. How could (or why would) the CDA assess the gender and age of the proximate civilians in a random simulation? The specific people walking at an intersection will be out-of-date long before a CDA is complete.

As a second question, why was a second CDA not performed before the second missile strike? The wall has been removed. Civilian targets have been drawn to the site to recover the wounded. The entire situation has changed from the first strike, and it seems the damage would be significantly higher, and it was a completely separate command. If they spent 4 hours wrangling over one girl, in no apparent rush, why not run the CDA a few more times instead of unilaterally continuing to bomb?

If anything, you've already removed the vest risk, you've likely mortally wounded the woman, the terrorists are dead - your cost/benefit tradeoff of a missile strike is WAY down, almost zero. I mean the ethics were so important, what's the rush?