The section you mention is immediately preceded with their (personal) opinion on why this was satisfactory: > This information is derivative of the information

The section you mention is immediately preceded with their (personal) opinion on why this was satisfactory: > This information is derivative of the information Mr. Musk first sought in Sections 1.01-1.03 of the May 19 diligence request list. Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. In other words, they sent the monthly rollup and he wants the daily breakdown. They further argue all throughout that they feel that the data requested would not even service the stated purpose, and they want to exercise their discretion to withhold in certain ways. In addition to them explicitly saying "we still believe hes acting in an adversarial role so we are trying to close the deal but are still aware he might end up trying to start a competing product instead". Obviously theres two sides to it, but when you sit down and read the public statements Twitter makes an _extremely_ convincing argument up-to-and-including screenshotting Musks own public tweets about the whole affair. In comparison, Musks SEC statements I would classify as "throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks" with very little explicit justification on why legally he is correct. The entire evidence presented by him is > Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%. i.e. we arent at all going to outline anything higher than 5%, just that its "wildly" higher and we are basing this on Musks "strong belief based on preliminary analysis".