I think Peter what you are saying here is 100% wrong. You seem to have lost the plot. If the data is Fake then nothing needs to be explained. Nor can any speculations be made because without (non-fake) data we do not have a clue what were temps etc.
Perhaps you are asking, how could the claimed data be (sort of) real and Rossi's device not work?
Very easily! you look at the headline COP=200 and reckon that this cannot be explained away. Let me lead you through why it can. I'm sure, in fact, that if you pay attention to what people have said here you already know this? but here goes:
The key thing is the assumption of phase change for flow round the system. Specifically rossi's figures assume all water is vapourised, leave his reactor has 100% dry steam, returns as liquid. It is very easy indeed for such a system (without careful trapping etc) to have water flow so that 99% or more of all water circulates in liquid phase. There is absolutely no evidence there is significant phase change and significant evidence (103C for a high flow rate pumped system) that there is no phase change. Of course with 100% phase change, as Rossi and the ERV assume, the output temperature would never be near 100C even at atmospheric pressure. And the factory would get too hot. The evidence against Rossi's and the (clearly professionally incompetent and, it seems, in hiding) ERV assumption is cast iron. (Maybe Penon did not author or authorise the report - but in that case allowing it to be used without clear written refutation must surely at best be professional incompetence).
If we (for one moment) accept Rossi's 1500kg/h that removes a total power of 1500*2257 kJ/h = 940kW from the calculations. We are down from 1MW to 60kW output. If 1% of the water is actually delivered as steam that goes up to 70kW. You get the idea.
Next, let us examine the other component of the "heat delivered" equation. That comes from heating the water. It is (Tin-Tout)*1500*4kJ/hour/C = 1.7kW/C. So with no phase change, accepting 1500kg/h, we have an expected temperature rise from Rossi's 20kW input of about 13C.
The figures we have (103C and and 60C) would superficially seem to indicate more than that. The problem is that neither figure represents mixed flow liquid temperature on the inlet vs outlet sides, which is what we would need. It is very easily for water to circulate going between 103C and 90C (stablised at 103C by small amts of phase change). it is also very easy for water to circulate between 60 and 73C with the outlet unmixed and the temperature measurement looking at a small amount of high temp steam.
Or, the two temperature readings could both be correct, and the flowmeter could be spoofed as Jed suggests.
Or, some combination of the three error mechanisms.
Now, Peter, I have answered your question. Suppose you answer mine. What evidence do you have that Rossi's devices have ever generated any excess heat? I'm looking here for positive evidence from tests, not speculations and conspiracy theories.
Why should you have a monopoly on speculation, because at this point that's all anyone has. There is simply not enough information available for your own supposition.