Everything is transparent and clear in AK's posts.

There, "clear" and "transparent" are indirect evidence:

Thus, one can accuse anyone they dislike by appealing to the fact that there is no 100% proof of save file tampering, therefore there is no need to investigate them. But suspicions exist, which means he may be guilty (because he could have done it) - it is difficult to argue with this, but how does the fact that a person has the opportunity to commit a crime imply that he actually committed it?

As for replacing one player with another, the evidence is even more indirect, but it is difficult to deny their logic, and this must be acknowledged.
If a person wins against top players in tournaments, then their performance in the season should not differ significantly, although this is also a debatable point, since a person may have a different attitude towards tournament and season games.

____

As proof of Pit's substitution for LM, he refers, for example, to a linguistic analysis of the texts of the reports! But who conducted this analysis? Pit himself?

In order to accept this argument, I personally need a photograph or the official document of the conclusion - from a professional linguist. Is there such a photograph?