Here's Michigan's summary of what I believe to be the same incident: <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707197_7.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707...</a><p>> ... tabulators did not communicate properly with the County’s
central election management system software when the county combined and reported unofficial results. Every tabulator recorded ballots correctly but the unofficial reports were erroneous. These errors can always be identified and corrected because every tabulator prints a paper totals tape showing how the ballots for each race were counted. After discovering the error in reporting the unofficial results, the clerk worked diligently to report correct unofficial results by reviewing the printed totals tape on each tabulator and hand-entering the results for each race, for each precinct in the county.<p>TFA takes a fairly conspiratorial tone;<p>> A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not
seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by
intentional errors in the system.<p>"Intentional errors" are neither defined nor substantiated in this report, which I find a bit suspicious. Hanlon's Razor applies here.<p>However the report does make some explicit claims about vote tallies including a photograph of some pieces of paper that claim to be the paper tallies differing totals; I'd be interested in seeing the government's response to this particular claim.<p>> There were incremental changes throughout the rolls with some significant
adjustments between the 2 rolls that were reviewed. This demonstrates
conclusively that votes can be and were changed during the second machine
count after the software update. That should be impossible especially at such a
high percentage to total votes cast.<p>> The Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's statement is false. Our findings show
that the tabulator tape totals were significantly altered by utilization of two
different program versions, and not just the Dominion Election Management
System. This is the opposite of the claim that the Office of the Secretary of
State made on its website. The fact that these significant errors were not caught
in ballot testing and not caught by the local county clerk shows that there are
major inherent built-in vulnerabilities and process flaws in the Dominion
Election Management System, and that other townships/precincts and the
entire election have been affected<p>It's worth mentioning that for years prior to this election cycle, there were significant concerns raised in security circles around the integrity of voting machines, e.g. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-data-security-expert-fears-u-s-voting-will-be-hacked-11587747159" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-a-data-security-expert-fear...</a>. So I think that a lot of the points being presented here around general security/hackability of the systems should confirm the priors held by anyone that has a passing interest in information security. However some of the claims around specific anomalies in vote counts require domain expertise which I do not have to contribute.