Otherwise, I think you are in error in your expectation of the meaning... and the irreversibly... of having certified a result as “not fraudulent”, as when it is later proved that result was in fact fraudulent... perhaps also that the act of certification itself was a knowing fraud, and a continuation of a patter of fraud.
The error is in logic, versus law, as the assumption is that the acts undertaken are undertaken in good faith. If you can prove the acts were not done in good faith... you lose the benefit of the assumption.
I'm just looking at the EC and the intent of the framers.
Hamilton argues in the Federalist Papers that the EC can act as a check on the will of the voters - to rebel against someone manifestly unqualified.
But at that point the electoral college votes are independent from the 11/3 election. Meaning that if you prove something after the electoral college votes... then it's too late because the electoral college has already voted and rendered the 11/3 election moot.
It's the electoral college vote that REALLY counts. And time is basically up.
(Plus, I'm not sure you've noticed... but Powell is NOT doing well in court. She's making Giuliani look good by comparison. It's really bad...)