The Holmes example is off-base as you had quite obviously been exposed to Holmes (e.g. it was in your training data). Pangram is asserting they don't need that

The Holmes example is off-base as you had quite obviously been exposed to Holmes (e.g. it was in your training data). Pangram is asserting they don't need that to identify an individual. An individual who may still be learning and developing their writing style/voice, etc. Put this in the mentalist bucket. Sure, for parlor tricks like you describe, it can be entertaining because the stakes are low and we accept the error rate. Should you discipline a student solely on the basis of Pangram output (which is happening in the real world)? Absolutely not.