Every comparison of pairs of candidates shows improbable changes. This is important, as it helps rule out the possibility that a single typo in the data drives the pattern.
Irrespective of the old distribution, the new batch is extremely unlikely on its own terms, as it has a ratio of support for Jorgenson relative to Trump (20%) that is higher than virtually every county in America. The last fact is consistent with aiming to get Biden’s vote share “high but not impossibly high” while simultaneously trying to not give any more votes to Trump than absolutely necessary.
The distribution of the ballots being removed from the in-person counts is even more implausible (98.1% Biden), making it difficult to explain the overall vote update as being due to genuine mail ballots having been previously incorrectly classified as in-person.
They added votes to Biden out o thin air. They pulled votes from Trump and gave them to Jorgenson.
And consider the implausibility of that 95%!!
The article indicated that all absentee ballots from the county were sent to the same P.O. box. Hence, all ballots would be mixed together from all parts of the county. We know that from statistical modeling (especially well defined in polling algorithms), indicate that only 1000 or so samples need to be taken to get very close to a complete sample for the entire population. In this case it was 90,000 votes! This is a huge sample size and the fact this sample disagrees with all other samples by a large margin is statistically impossible (not just unlikely). This one finding is proof that these are not real votes. And the fact they reduced the in-person count at the same time is just icing on the case.
Of course the only other explanation is that this was an entry error but I think the article sufficiently debunks that theory.