I'm reaching? Like, why would the defense's wrong argument be relevant? You're not arguing with the defense here.
Your claim was that the judge's call is wrong because zooming doesn't actually do interpolation and has thus no potential to introduce wrong information. I've told you that zooming in this case does interpolate and that interpolation has the potential to go wrong.
When interpolation goes wrong it’s predictably wrong, which is not true of more complex algorithms using AI. If we can predict how it goes wrong we can extract the meaningful information from it.
Your claim was that the judge's call is wrong because zooming doesn't actually do interpolation and has thus no potential to introduce wrong information. I've told you that zooming in this case does interpolate and that interpolation has the potential to go wrong.