That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we sim

That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we simply made a fairly common error and now we fixed it ??? I mean, that's what these people are alleging. That the system is prone to errors. So whether you believe the original numbers are correct, or you believe the new numbers are correct, or you believe there are likely a different set of numbers altogether that better reflect the reality, the premise underlying your belief has to be that numbers have been reported in error. Logical consistency for adherence to any of the possible positions demands a concession that either the first set of reported numbers were erroneous, or the second set of reported numbers were erroneous. Or, indeed, both sets of reported numbers were erroneous.