The conclusion of the article is quite intentionally left off because even after that analysis, it turns out that the law isn't like programming (as the article

The conclusion of the article is quite intentionally left off because even after that analysis, it turns out that the law isn't like programming (as the article literally points out) and even after looking at what the law, and judicial reason, allows for, there is no clear cut answer here. There are too many grey areas for there to be "one conclusion". And of course the conclusion in court in cases like these is, as it should be: the judge's decision based on all the information surfaced during the trial to help them reach their decision.