IQ-test-type question - sequence of large triangles with black and white small triangles in them

Not (yet) a solution, but I made some colorings which might help with finding a pattern and numbers to help explain the pattern to others:

How about this solution:

My Answer

Given this patter of numbers:

Given an increment in the current mini-triangle with every big triangle then I an proposing that the previous triangle must be able to cover the current mini-triangle (which is white) in a black mini-triangle. Therefore A is perfect as it for fills both of my rules. The first triangle already has a black triangle on the first mini-triangle.

Considering the sequence and the possible answers it seems clear that there are three black triangles, two of which are overlapping in the last situation. From the first to the last situation is four steps. None of the rules of movement that I could come up with would explain the intermediate and final situation if applied four times.

So maybe it is not movement but change. I got pretty excited about this rule: "change the first (left to right, top to bottom) black triangle to white, the next first white triangle to black" (giving answer A), but it cannot explain overlapping triangles, and thus cannot explain the final situation.

I believe this is the correct answer.

What I notice here is

If the rules of play are:

and

Then A is the only possible answer that can lead to diagram 5 following the observed "rules".

The problem with B is that you inferred that they move to neighbors. The 5th spot and available answers suggest you need to re-evaluate your assumptions. Given the available information, A is the best available answer because there isn't a logical progression from B to diagram 5.

Insinuating a pattern, where one does not exist is classic. Was it a functional IQ test? Military?

ps. if you insist on the snake interpretation, maybe the mouse had no reason to move until the snake arrived, catching it in the next move. I like my answer better :)

I've spent a lot of time on this, I still do not have a full answer but do see a pattern that fits the so far preferred answer - A. I haven't been able to detect a pattern with the other answers.

Because there are an odd number of triangles there must be something different about the rule for at least one triangle. I can provide a speculative explanation with my cyan dot but am not entirely happy with it.

Maybe someone can build on this to provide the final logic?