Basically what I said was not wrong when it was said, but defending plausible deniability clause for someone who later behave like said in exhibit 5 is not good for my credibility.
Don't be too hard on yourself about it. Many of us (including myself) did the same. Obviously IH thought he had something too. Maybe even AR tried to play it straight at one time and thought he had something. Kind of like Jimmy in Better Call Saul, where he tried to play it fairly straight as a lawyer, but was drawn back to the old patterns of conning after awhile. Dameron may not have done enough experiments to realize that the purported 1.3 COP is probably just an unidentified artifact. But if not, does it really matter if you can only repeat it one time out of a 100? It is almost as bad as a UA if real.
Now if BE actually has a 100% repeatable system working at a COP of 1.3, then that could really be something important. I look forward to finding out if that is real.