I personally find these kinds of updates and transparency useful, so thanks for the context + appreciate it!
It is a little surprising to hear that the numbers claimed by both sides differ so much from each other—did the total number of cases from them or attributed to them total 30 incidents? What do you define as “possibly / formerly involved with EA”?
I guess I’m wondering whether this difference is because they only shared, e.g. 5 / 44 cases, or whether all 44 were shared but only 4 of them that fit the CH team’s definition of “possibly involved with EA”?
Strong upvoted for visibility.
I personally find these kinds of updates and transparency useful, so thanks for the context + appreciate it!
It is a little surprising to hear that the numbers claimed by both sides differ so much from each other—did the total number of cases from them or attributed to them total 30 incidents? What do you define as “possibly / formerly involved with EA”?
I guess I’m wondering whether this difference is because they only shared, e.g. 5 / 44 cases, or whether all 44 were shared but only 4 of them that fit the CH team’s definition of “possibly involved with EA”?