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.
That’s not the point of the report. The point of the report is to show that the results vary widely with the same ballots. That it affected Trump and Biden in particular is a side-effect.