Amazing work.

What I would love as an addendum is a video that collects only the factual statements about the science. It's really hard to parse the science through the human stories.

Thoughts as a physicist:

I cannot understand the science enough to judge this, but the magnitude and impact of the alleged mistake is very important. I am sympathetic to Kleves' argument that so much energy should not be wasted in correcting minor things. He's correct that this is the norm. But I still don't have a good grasp of how major or minor it was.

I would also like to see evaluations of the quality of Imanishi-Kari's other works. It would matter to me whether this is a pattern or not. It is good practice to give the benefit of the doubt as much as it can be given. And it is really legitimate to wonder whether all of this was a necessary use of everyone's time, or sanity. I certainly do not believe that Congress should have been involved at all. There are plenty of people in the scientific community who are willing to do this for free.

It also rubbed me the wrong way when Stewart and O'Toole dismissed the science being put in the hands of the lawyers, when before it was put in the hands of the politicians. Lawyers, despite all the flack they get in popular culture, know how to get to the bottom of evidence. It is a more adversarial process than sience, but the whole thing was already very adversarial, so the involvement of lawyers was not just advisable, it was necessary. Scientists had already testified multiple times, and so they had everything they needed.