I agree. Ohio just wants an answer as to whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run. Maybe that is to simple, but it really does sum up the problem.
I am kind of where you are— what is the Constitutional standard? If the SC want to ensure the Constitutional is followed but is unwilling to dictate the state’s election result, I can see them splitting the baby. Perhaps as a condition of certification, the SC could simply require the four states attest under penalty of perjury that their election was conducted pursuant to state law without modification by state and local judiciary and executive actors (the Constitutional standard), then the SC has disenfranchised no one. If state officials are unable to attest to the statement, it is the state officials who placed their voters in jeopardy. The voters are not disenfranchised, they just lose their Safe Harbor status.