Bear in mind, your initial objection herein was to who conducted the audit. Having seen you're wrong, you're now objecting to how the audit was conducted. In trial advocacy, this is what we call inconsistency and bias. It looks really bad to a jury.

In my personal opinion, I would totally support a signature audit. However, there is no warrant to delay the transition of power to do so, as we do not presume regularly conducted elections to be fraudulent until proven valid. Likewise, I fully expect to hear another round of complaints from the MAGA crowd about "undue exercise of discretion" when a signature with an extra squiggle is not rejected in the audit. Because — at the end of the day — members of that crowd are concerned primarily with winning, not with whether the election was valid.