Is it fair to rely on the fact that there is only a single solution to make deductions?
Here's an example illustration, from the top-left corner of a board:
y B R
x R _
_ _ _
If x is red, then y is indeterminate, either red or blue is valid there, no other constraint can "see" y to determine it. But if we know the puzzle has a single solution, then we can correctly say x must be blue, so that some other constraint south of x can see through to y. This could be worked out later from that other constraint. But the rules yield this emergent property of a shortcut, and any such emergent property is fair game for logical deduction.If there's anything unfair about this approach, it's that the existence of a single solution is merely implied by puzzle conventions and not explicitly stated as a rule for 0h n0 here.
However there does appear to be another constraint that is not mentioned explicitly, which is that there are no blue circles that are not in line-of-sight with a numbered circle.
Any blue circle (or any linear group of them) that is not in line-of-sight with a numbered circle would have no constraint preventing it/them from being red instead. Therefore the solution wouldn't be unique, so such blue circles can't exist.