While you did “debunk" many of the specific fraud allegations with careful facts and logic, I truly don’t see where you debunked the possible fraud in counting ballots received without postmarks post-election in Pennsylvania. You concede this could happen, and then argue it would not lead to fraudulent votes. You do not offer fact or logic as proof of this: only assumption:
Really what Claim 7 shows is the fundamental difference in philosophies about voting: presumption of eligibility vs presumption of ineligibility.
Your saying, “I presume these were not fraudulent ballots", doesn’t debunk the opposing presumption that they are fraudulent.
Perhaps you would concede this point. It is the only flaw I found in an otherwise well-argued set of rebuttals.