You claim the state disputes that the counsel was misled. Perhaps they have. It sounds plausible.
But she didn't say:
It is undisputed that the state misled trial defense counsel.
She said, and I quote:
It is undisputed that the state misled trial defense counsel about...
The latter is completely distinct from the former.
... the evidentiary value of the Dassey computer contents
So this is one of two specific things she was claiming the misleading was about.
The state has disputed that the stuff on the computer is of significant evidentiary value to the judge in 2018. This is completely distinct from disputing that they misled trial defense counsel in 2006/2007 -- even if the state essentially argues that they were doing the trial judges and trial defense counsel a favor, and even if they are judged right.
KK wrote that the DVDs contained "not much of evidentiary value". TF said they contained porn, teen porn, and death, but none of those are as alarming as the truth she claims to have found. And this is what matters; the legal principle here is that, if the motion is to be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing, then it must be dismissed on the basis that she's telling the truth in her motion even if the judge is confident that what she claims isn't true and that the state is right.
and the identity of the computer’s primary user
This is the other specific thing she's saying is undisputed.
This is due to KK and others writing "Brendan computer" and several other misleading variations including "Brendan's computer" with the possessive apostrophe in key reports and letters sent to the trial defense.
The state has not disputed that and won't because it's a matter of record. Neither have they disputed that it was misleading presumably because they would have to argue specifically that "Brendan's computer" didn't mean it was Brendan's, and that's a tough hill to climb, and because, for the purposes of whether an evidentiary hearing is called for, it was so obviously misleading to the defense given JB's affidavit in which he says he was misled and, again, the legal principle that, in determining whether to have an evidentiary hearing, the judge must assume that the defense's claims in their motion are true.
Essentially, the state didn't dispute this stuff because they consider it a red herring. Which is their prerogative. They had strong points to make and focused on those instead.