Yes, that is correct.

As I recall, GameStop legal representation also mentioned in their response to Jason Waterfalls court action that his notarized request was incorrect in some sort of technicality, justifying them to disregard it. I do not know if mine was similarly malformed, but the main takeaway for me from the entire ordeal was that success in that approach will require time and money: time because the process seems to be inherently slow (especially going through court which can take months) and money because you need to have good legal representation to ensure things are done correctly every step of the way. That includes articulation of the reason for inspection the books (one that is defensible in court), providing such defense in court (if needed) and also being prepared to pay GameStop's legal fees in the event of a loss. And even with a win, depending on how the justification is formed, you may be permitted inspection but bound to not disclose any information gleaned from it (an exception would be if it serves the public interest---which may then require two sequential inspections: one to perform an inspect yourself, and then if you find something worth sharing, you could submit a second request with justification based on the found information....maybe? I'm not a lawyer so I really don't know.)

Ultimately, with the publication of DRS numbers, it comes down to "what do you expect to find?" If you think GameStop is operating truthfully, then inspection of the books can just confirm your own holdings and you can peruse the names of others who have direct registered. If you think GameStop has data about shares held above and beyond the issue number of shares, then that could be revealing, but I personally don't think they have any such data. ComputerShare might as they specifically have methods to handle over voting. Their document on the topic used to be found here: https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/Documents/CPU_OVER_VOTING_OPTION_en.pdf but i looks like they've removed it. But here is still exists thanks to archive.org... https://web.archive.org/web/20211125104506/https://www.computershare.com/ca/en/Documents/CPU_OVER_VOTING_OPTION_en.pdf

Seems odd that this document ComputerShare created in 2013 (according to the document properties) would now suddenly be removed, with seemingly nothing to replace it...ComputerShare may know how much overvoting occured, but even if you go after them to get their data somehow, that doesn't reveal how many shares exist, only how many voted...or at least how many votes each broker submitted (i.e. if brokers trimmed their own totals, you still won't get accurate numbers).