This is the item above, and it is logged here as well because the honest outcome of the work was a failure to overturn the obvious. Three separate attempts at a structural explanation were available and all three collapsed, two on principle and one on arithmetic.

• The plan defence. Attractive, unverifiable, dropped. The 10b5-1 checkbox is not reproduced in any source reachable from here, and a contrarian claim resting on a field nobody has read is exactly the kind of thing this report exists to avoid.
• The succession defence. Coherent, and useless. “He stepped back so he is diversifying” and “he thinks the shares are rich” generate identical filings. Evidence consistent with both readings is not evidence.
• The scale defence — the one that usually works. Most founder sales are noise, and the fastest way to deflate a breathless headline is to divide the sale by the position. Here that division defends the headline instead: 5.6% of his own stake in eight trading days, against 0.216% for the Schwab sale covered in the last edition. A factor of twenty-six is not a rounding difference. The denominator test, applied honestly, says this one is real.

Why the ordinary reading survives: a founder with no operating role, selling 5.6% of his position in a fortnight within 0.6% of the all-time high, after a 217% move, is doing the simple thing for the simple reason. Looking for a cleverer story here would be pattern-matching to contrarianism, which is a worse failure than reporting nothing.