Thank you both for thinking critically.
Q team was sloppy and dismissive.
It should raise more eyebrows.
Agreed and the need for some amount of plausible deniability was an excellent way of explaining away the +10 timestamp.
But Q just told the anons "request fulfilled", be content with +10 and run with it like it's a [0:00] hard proof.
This is wrong.
All proofs needs to be carefully checked. Others are provably bad.
Too much of a coincidence that there isn't one solid hard proof. Too much weak evidence for Q to be fake. Just the way it should be?