You are correct on the five questions...which she will probably decline to answer.
I think the committee will convene at 9:30 AM on Monday, and if she’s not in the room....they will move to adjourn within two minutes after a roll-call is wrapped up. The Democrats will demand more time...the adjournment will occur in lightning speed, and the Senate will be handed the item to vote upon by Tuesday morning. Some delays might occur, but I think by Thursday of next week....the vote will wrap up and it’s done.
The chief problem I see....based on various accounts of her level of alcohol consumption over several years of this period, you can’t rely upon her memory in any fashion. It’s possible that she’s blacked-out several times and this lapse of memory is totally screwed up.
The other factor playing out....for November elections, do you as a voter really want some drunken slut-tramp factor that occurred 35 years ago to influence your vote? I can’t see anyone changing their vote over this.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, because memory is very easy to influence. Studies have shown that people can remember things that never happened, given the right suggestions.
In this case, maybe something happened, maybe not. What she described sounds like a clumsy seduction attempt, much like those that billions of women experience at least once while young. If true, I seriously doubt that she even knew the guy’s name (given that she apparently did not know the name of anyone at the party other than Kavanaugh and his friend). Last, even if it was Kavanaugh, so what? Are we now going to start imprisoning men or otherwise destroy them for committing clumsy acts of seduction as teens?