Not the baker, but I can't follow your reasoning. This might be why previous baker and anons didn't bite. You're making very broad, general claims:
>ANONS - I think we've got the comms figured out.
and saying that "partial proof" is sufficient to jump to these and other even more specific conclusions because "the story is not done playing out."
You need to be more explicit in connecting dots from specific citations from the sources you've posted and and the conclusions you've reached.
What's more, in your particular example 3330:
>Chain of Command
>Chain of Custody
>PENCE' CoS + Wife
>FBI 302's
>FISA (spy) > Flynn
>Will newly discovered evidence (AG Barr - SDNY) FREE FLYNN?
Q
You've misinterpreted the standard way in which Q uses the ">" symbol
>The FISA (spy) story is apparently NOT bigger than Flynn - if this is the case.
I can't think of an example where it's been shown he's used it in the greater than/less than context. Whereas It's been shown many times Q uses ">" to mean "leads to"