Elon Musk shifts SpaceX's state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas following legal...

[SoftFox]

On the contrary, I've given substantial evidence. Why restate years of mDAU figures immediately after accepting Musk's offer, unless they knew the data was wrong? Where was the algorithm and methodology to "confidently assert" that bot traffic was less than 5% of the total? It didn't exist. Twitter themselves publicly stated that, "to calculate how many accounts are malicious spam, we review thousands of accounts sampled at random..." In reality, they sampled 100 per day -- and rather than doing so randomly, they specifically ignored those accounts most likely to be bots.

Was it fraudulent though or just a genuine re-assessment/mistake? As previously stated, The SEC filings contain sufficient allowance in changes on actual numbers and how they are counted. This coupled with Musk previous comments on his belief of higher BOT numbers and lack of due diligence mean proving fraud against him would be very difficult.
The overwhelming majority of lawyer-based website commentators also agree with this assessment. Musk had very little chance of winning any court case.

We seem to be repeating….

In any case, you've misunderstood my argument. It's not that Twitter definitely committed fraud. It's that, fraud or not, no due diligence clause would have helped. Due diligence is about verifying objective figures, not subjective opinions. Any clause to allow Musk's team to cancel the deal if their own subjective evaluation of bot traffic disagreed with Twitter's would have been so general as to constitute what's called an "escape clause", which would have transmuted the offer into a non-binding letter of intent.

Supposition

Due diligence can be anything you want it to be. It’s basically you signing an initial contact saying I am willing to buy your company but want to see further evidence or appraisal to mitigate any risk before committing to a full contract. Its entirely up to you what conditions and investigations you write into it. He could have requested or stipulated what calculation/algorithm was used for BOT numbers, but he didn’t.

The problem is that people read some gaslighting click-bait headline on the Internet ("Musk waived due diligence! What a bone-headed move!") and swallow it whole.

Well as repeated ad nauseam it was a bone-head move on a 44 Billion Take-over… Due diligence would have allowed him legally to re-negotiate or (or back out) of the deal without resorting to the courts.

I’m out of this conversation. All the points I have raised are based on due legal process (to best of knowledge) which you seem to be ignoring and resorting to hypotheticals...