I appreciate that distinction. But the petitioner did challenge the reliability of the recount figures. My difficulty is with the reasoning that follows. At paragraph 96, the Judge expressly found that proceeding with the recount after discovering compromised electoral materials constituted non-compliance with electoral law. At paragraph 101, he nevertheless treated the resulting recount certificate as the operative and uncontroverted record of the election. The question is whether the petitioner was required to identify specific invalid votes within the recount, or whether the established defects in the integrity of the electoral materials were themselves relevant to the reliability of the resulting figures. I accept that the petitioner retained the burden of proving substantial effect. But I would distinguish between proving that particular votes were wrongly counted and proving that the recount process was so compromised that its figures could not safely be relied upon. The Judge found the latter process unlawful but did not, in my view, sufficiently explain why its resulting figures remained reliable. That is the point on which I think the judgment is open to debate.