Since criminal discovery procedures are different than civil ones, I took a look at them. There are categories of discoverable things and whether and when they have to be disclosed is governed by NC Gen Stat 15A-905. I don't know the scope of the discovery exchanges in this case, so I've no way to have an opinion on where and when the ducks would have fit into that. However, it does only cover things "intended" to be used as evidence. Since intent could change, evidence possibly could be disclosed late even if it existed before.
The judge is allowed to police all this basically by doing whatever he wants: excluding the evidence, mistrial, sanctions, etc.
Under NC Gen Stat 15A-907 any evidence subject to discovery is subject to a continuing duty to disclose promptly once it appears the evidence exists and will be used.
Since I didn't see the state make much of a deal over the production against the defense attorneys, and since the judge didn't exclude it, it must not have been a material violation of any discovery obligations.
Perhaps not a good day anyway to challenge that on legal grounds too hard since the state seems to be preparing to seek introduction of brand new fresh evidence that will be material.
IMO, the duck thing is of no importance, except as to impeach the state's theory of their being missing. Perhaps the jury will think why did the defense waste our time disproving this insignificant fact, or why didn't the defense tell the prosecution a long time ago that the ducks were around, or perhaps the jury will think that is now another hole in the state's case.
Me? I'm hoping this router, CISCO log on thing has legs since I'm still in the BDI camp, though not perhaps a welcome guest any longer by some!