As I speculated elsethread, one of the authors did this without the knowledge of the other. That speculation could have been proven false, but it turned out to be correct.

I'm content that reserving judgement was the right call — as opposed to your maximalist call to end the careers of both authors even before all the facts were known.

Since it's so easy to get busted fabricating pull quotes from a published blog (as opposed to the more insidious fabrication of quotes from a private interview), I'm unsurprised that Kyle Ormand didn't go and vet the work of his co-author. Ending Ormond's career is in my view would not have been a proportionate penalty for his role in this affair.

Ars Technica's response is only so-so because although in combination with the Benj Edwards bluesky post it clarifies what happened, it doesn't detail any institutional reforms, such as adding additional layers of review.