> Based on the analysis in the post The analysis in the post is dogshit and misrepresents the review board's actual conclusions. > But the problem, if anythin

> Based on the analysis in the post The analysis in the post is dogshit and misrepresents the review board's actual conclusions. > But the problem, if anything, was that too much dense information was conveyed at all That's totally opposite to what the members of the review board identified as the problem.