Ah. You are missing half the story.
The Nov 3 reading was acknowledged as wrong, and didn’t match the ballots at all.
This is the county where the oddity of a Republican County ‘went for Biden’, and where one of the local folks running didn’t even carry his own household showed up in the original report. This was rechecked, with the figures you see on the 5th reported as the corrected figure based upon manual recheck. This is the ‘glitch’ county, that was later changed to ‘human error’.
one of the local folks running didn’t even carry his own household showed up in the original report. Ding ding ding we have a winner
Ok, if that is the case it should be better explained in the report. If they are trying to state that this data and the rest of their findings evinces proof of or high likelihood of statewide fraud, then they should state that in the report, not allude to it in a nebulous manner.
The fact that only this year’s server logs are missing for the time of the vote and the counting as well as audit trails and other things being deleted, those are damning enough in and of themselves. If they are trying to point from this to that then they should be saying something to the effect of: the information that they have gathered leads them to believe that there is a much greater likelihood of malfeasance throughout the state that needs to be investigated or audited based on their findings here.
I write reports for failure analysis, and I would never consider being this vague about what point I am trying to get across or what I might construe from data that I have seen.