The most egregious part to me was the following: "A 2 is added because the number wasn't high enough — it didn't seem to fit what he wanted to show in his char

The most egregious part to me was the following: "A 2 is added because the number wasn't high enough — it didn't seem to fit what he wanted to show in his charts, so he just added 2 to it. There was quite a lot of this sort of thing in his spreadsheets." The FT author is claiming Piketty knowingly falsified the data here "to fit what he wanted to show." That's a major accusation, and Giles clearly cannot know it is true. The Economist agrees: "But while some of the data and adjustments in the spreadsheets lack adequate documentation, Mr Giles does not have the evidence to justify the implication that figures are drawn "from thin air". Data fabrication is a serious charge to make, and I am surprised Mr Giles would allege it without clearer proof."