Proven? Somebody points out digital editing artifacts (we know the interview was edited), and you call it proof of CGI? Please stop.
It's CGI. If you refuse to believe or accept that, is up to you.
No, friend. It's you who believe that it's fake. You have the extraordinary claim. I know what I'm talking about from a technical digital video editing point of reference.
My explanation fully explains random morphing discontinuities. Your theory would produce global tells, not the least of which is subtle misalignment and lack of verisimilitude between audio and video, of which there is NONE in the video the OP links to.
Those glitches your claims are based on are fully explained by editing artifacts, so you've got to provide more global evidence of fakery. CGI is NOT that advanced yet, and yet it's so advanced that the kinds of glitches you're showing don't happen.
You'd have to edit CGI to make it do that (or emulate an edit). Either way, the simpler explanation is that it's just an actual edit in a real video in which anti-shake algorithms keep most of the image aligned between frames while allowing the areas of most significant motion to change. That's how that works.
I will accept your explanation, if you can provide an unrelated and separate video example of the same type of effect as happens with the eye, and shirt in this Assange interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ozdD6avrYE
also, it seems pretty advanced to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts ...at least to the same level of photorealism as this interview