That Reswitched is not perfect is true, since they are only humans, never said anything else, but they are still our best source for almost all info about the system. No one prevents you from reversing and analyzing the system too, to prove they made more mistakes.
But for example about the SXCore, what they where wrong about was their theorizing about how it will work, and that was before the release of it, and it was exactly that, theorizing.
For the MigSwitch, I'm unsure about what you are talking exactly, because they shared the info that Nintendo has a backup card system in case the current one gets compromised already, so its clear that even Nintendo thought it might potentially be possible that flashcards might get created at some point.
All the ktempkin stuff also was years ago, in the beginning of the scene, and I'm pretty sure, neither you nor me know everything that happened in that case, so I would not really see that as evidence about them not trusting their members.
About the a lot of users using AIO packs, just check alone deepseas download stats
here to see that its around 10% of atmospheres downloads, and this is just a single AIO pack, there are more out there. This pretty much disproves the point you tried to make about the minum amount of knowledge about what they are running, requried for using signature patches and a title installer, and proves my point about it being relativelly low.
I also don't understand how you think your data is better then whats collected by scientists collecting users report information, because even there when using user reported data, they need to account for user biases and limits, based on the topic.
We also know from many places that even just how a question is asked can manipulate answers given, one of those examples is interviewing witnesses, where you can greatly influence what the user says by the way you ask it.
And based on this and other threads, we also know that not every user of CFW is a pro that knows most there is about what they are running.
So why think the user data reported, and the way you ask the questions there is perfect enough to conclude bans are random and cfw itself leads to bans, when you and every reporter are also just humans. What makes you think only reswtiched can be wrong about theories, and not you also?
We have enough reports out there of people who are running CFW online for years, while it would not make sense from nintendos perspective to allow people to keep doing something they deem problematic enough to do ban people for. So random bans, instead of ban waves would make 0 sense for nintendo, since they know that reports about people not getting banned will incentivise people to keep/start doing it. You comming to the conclusion the nintendo bans fully randomly in my opinnion already shows that your data is flawed, since as explained, it would not make sense to do that from nintendos perspective. It also shows that we might potentially be missing something thats unsafe, that some users do, but to identify that, we will need further investigation in specific cases, to see if its users bias, a problem with the questions, or really something we are missing.
Also I used telemetry, because its something objective, where everything that's claimed can also be verified by a third party. Ban reports issued by a users on the other side are not that easily verified, so its not hypocritical to trust one more then the other. I already gave you points well known in science why user reported data can be problematic in general, and I also gave you an explicit example of a question that results in your questionair not covering all bases, unless the person sending a report explicitily has specific assumptions about the topic already. So I actually gave you evidence about potentiall problems in your survey/methodology.
Also are you really trying to frame discords having team only channels, or non public channels, as something supporting your claims, when I can guarantee you that many public project discords will have private channels, including the pserver discords I'm in and the other one I'm leading leading. In my discord I have a full section with an area only for specific trusted people, where game analysis results not meant for the public are shared. Sometimes its also to first finish research on a topic, before sharing info publicly, while also recieving early feedback, just to make sure no half truth are shared, that might end up sticking with the community.
So trying to frame a private channel existing as making them less trustworthy, makes me think more that you are not nearly as fact based and unbiased as you are trying to convey.
