lol, apparently you don't know CYA legalese when you see it.
And why am I not surprised you went with the Colts balls as a rebuttal. First of all, the Colts balls were not in the same conditions. The Patriots were in the rain and the Colts were in a bag. The Colts balls also spent about 20-30 minutes waiting in a heated room before being tested. The Patriots were tested right away.
Exponent claims that the Patriots readings were lower than what would be expected unless the measurements were done within the first 2 minutes and most of the balls were wet, both of which they deemed unlikely. However, there are major problems with the figures used in that test. The figures used for the Patriots on that chart do not match up with the actual recorded gameday data, this makes the Patriots figures seem more improbable. Notice that this chart gives the Patriots footballs an average reading of 11.2 psi. The potential range extends up to 11.4 and down to 11.0 psi. This makes it look like it was a very narrow window for the patriots balls to be such low pressure (since they would have heated up once they were brought inside, the testing would have to be started immediately and be done within 4 minutes.) But remember, the actual average of the game-day measurements when using the logo gauge were higher. It wasn’t 11.2, but nearly 11.5 psi.
This is how the graph in Figure 30 of the Wells report should look:
https://i.imgur.com/J2UxCsP.jpg
That places the actual Patriots halftime readings well within the predicted range, in fact they are smack-dab in the middle of the expected range when factoring in the temperature, rain, and the order in which the footballs were read (Patriots were read first so say the 1-5 minute mark, the Colts were read last, and they even ran out of time.) It also aligns all 3 of the Exponent-run simulations with the actual game-day readings.
