Joshua Kronengold

Yep! We can guess (but only guess) that the published numbers (which seem to indicate an implausible slate at the top) plus the internal memos that claim a slate was -removed- add up to those numbers matching the numbers that the "slate" would have had. But maybe they wouldn't!

I know Dave, and I've had -long- substantial arguments with him. That's why I'm not willing to ascribe 5-dimensional chess to him and instead think that the simpler solution (that the "slate" in the data matches the numbers of the "slate" in internal comms even though those seem to point to different works) is correct and that other discrepancies are flat-out error. Bu there are obvioulsy multiple conjectures possible (albiet many with much less likelyhood of being true).

I do outline up above what seems to be McCarty's reasoning, however fallacious -- which does accord with his statements. We -know- he believed that the above-mentioned phrase allows admins, as reps of the con committee to disqualify literally anything, and the con committee to add extra rules about disqualification. So while there may have been other "rules" he was following (other than the published "the team should remove illegal-by-Chinese-law works" and the known, internally announced, but not published "admins can and should remove
slated ballots" 'rule'), non--other than human error, seem to be needed to account for the data we have so far.