[Xperia Z5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] LolaPalocz:
Never using flashlight, so can't say.

Spent the night with amplify and powernap, set up to the point of not even updating clocks (status bar and widget) : still 1%/ hour, with very clean batterystats (only a few wake triggered from rtc alarm, that I guess Amplify can't prevent, just intercept) (the numbers 022-018 are battery %) :

[FONT="Courier New"][SIZE="2"] +8h41m22s968ms (2) 022 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+8h41m23s417ms (1) 022 -running
+8h43m29s580ms (2) 022 +running wake_reason=0:"200:qcom,smd-rpm:57:qcom,smd-modem"
+8h43m30s051ms (1) 022 -running
+8h44m19s130ms (2) 022 +running wake_reason=0:"200:qcom,smd-rpm:57:qcom,smd-modem"
+8h44m19s611ms (1) 022 -running
+9h09m50s982ms (3) 022 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+9h09m51s440ms (1) 022 -running
+9h12m36s122ms (2) 021 volt=7399 +running
Details: cpu=179840u+157680s
/proc/stat=254070 usr, 150670 sys, 7480 io, 22050 irq, 7740 sirq, 4278000 idle (9,4% of 13h 6m 40s 100ms)
+9h12m36s126ms (3) 021 wake_reason=0:"485:delta-soc:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm" stats=0:"battery-level"
+9h12m36s144ms (2) 021 stats=0:"get-stats"
+9h12m37s558ms (1) 021 -running
+9h39m50s981ms (3) 021 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+9h39m51s427ms (1) 021 -running
+9h44m49s974ms (2) 021 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+9h44m50s454ms (1) 021 -running
+9h51m52s998ms (2) 021 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+9h51m53s436ms (1) 021 -running
+10h09m50s982ms (3) 021 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+10h09m53s949ms (1) 021 -running
+10h23m07s976ms (3) 020 temp=242 +running
Details: cpu=0u+0s
/proc/stat=0 usr, 0 sys, 0 io, 0 irq, 0 sirq, 0 idle
+10h23m07s987ms (3) 020 wake_reason=0:"485:delta-soc:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm" stats=0:"battery-level"
+10h23m08s221ms (2) 020 stats=0:"get-stats"
+10h23m09s458ms (1) 020 -running
+10h39m51s010ms (3) 020 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+10h39m51s462ms (1) 020 -running
+11h06m53s721ms (3) 020 +running wake_reason=0:"485:delta-soc:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+11h06m55s204ms (1) 020 -running
+11h09m51s027ms (2) 020 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+11h09m51s515ms (1) 020 -running
+11h21m16s573ms (3) 020 +running wake_reason=0:"200:qcom,smd-rpm:57:qcom,smd-modem"
+11h21m17s211ms (1) 020 -running
+11h21m17s265ms (2) 020 +running wake_reason=0:"200:qcom,smd-rpm:57:qcom,smd-modem"
+11h21m17s742ms (1) 020 -running
+11h54m25s045ms (3) 019 +running
Details: cpu=1160u+2440s
/proc/stat=1410 usr, 2330 sys, -150 io, 100 irq, 40 sirq, -270630 idle
+11h54m25s058ms (3) 019 wake_reason=0:"485:delta-soc:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm" stats=0:"battery-level"
+11h54m25s103ms (2) 019 stats=0:"get-stats"
+11h54m26s537ms (1) 019 -running
+11h58m08s043ms (2) 019 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+11h58m08s524ms (1) 019 -running
+12h27m41s052ms (3) 019 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+12h27m43s151ms (1) 019 -running
+12h29m49s048ms (2) 019 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm"
+12h29m49s533ms (1) 019 -running
+12h41m34s068ms (3) 018 +running
Details: cpu=1510u+1930s
/proc/stat=1420 usr, 1780 sys, 30 io, 160 irq, 30 sirq, 3590 idle (48,8% of 1m 10s 100ms)
+12h41m34s072ms (3) 018 wake_reason=0:"485:delta-soc:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm" stats=0:"battery-level"
+12h41m34s135ms (2) 018 stats=0:"get-stats"
+12h41m35s544ms (1) 018 -running
+12h58m08s061ms (4) 018 +running wake_reason=0:"459:qpnp_rtc_alarm:222:fc4cf000.qcom,spmi:200:qcom,smd-rpm" stats=0:"get-stats"[/SIZE][/FONT]

Strange thing I always see in batterystats output :

[FONT="Courier New"][SIZE="2"] Estimated power use (mAh):
Capacity: 2700, [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Computed drain: 317[/COLOR], actual drain: 540-567
[B][COLOR="Red"]Unaccounted: 223 ( )[/COLOR][/B]
Screen: 94.8
Cell standby: 87.0 ( radio=87.0 )
Idle: 63.9
Phone calls: 47.8
Uid 0: 7.80 ( cpu=6.60 wake=1.20 wifi=0.0000475 )
Uid u0a284: 4.64 ( cpu=4.64 )
Uid 1000: 3.00 ( cpu=2.36 wake=0.562 wifi=0.0000146 sensor=0.0766 )[/SIZE][/FONT]

I'd be happy without these mAH unaccounted :|

I guess these numbers of mAH are not measured, but computed from some rules and the time spent in each state. And I've been always observing that Unaccounted makes like 30-50 % of the actual drain...

So, maybe Sony's have their computing rules wrong. And radio or the kernel uses more power / cpusecond that they estimated...

Did a full wipe this morning and installed .185 NOBA (thinking the radio update could help), unlocked but not yet rooted. All wifi/data disabled, no google account yet set : still 1%/h over a few hours not using it...

Also curious about Zacharias's thoughts !