Obviously it's hard to pass a judgement without knowing the paper contents. Reading the emails carefully, it seems Jeff acknowledges that the initial review cu

Obviously it's hard to pass a judgement without knowing the paper contents. Reading the emails carefully, it seems Jeff acknowledges that the initial review culminated in an "approval" despite some other "reviewers" still in pending state. That is a curious detail. Presumably someone with authority must have flipped the Approval bit within that 1 day. Why that individual did not object? The two-week excuse sounds like a made-up excuse post-facto based on the written policy but clearly that alone does not seem to be the reason this blew up. This is pure speculation, but it looks like there may have been some additional backchannel from the conference reviewers to their buddies at Google that caused a follow-on sensitivity or objection later from other functions at Google, namely PR & Policy (based on her tweets), which may have been why Timnit was super curious about the identity of the feedback authors.