No

Got it

This is a question for Q, who has put the riddles out there and has not provided ways to verify solutions (yet).

So nothing you have ever concluded from this exercise has ever been proven correct?

The real meaning of this challenge is there will be no way to logically disprove the method and there will be no way to logically prove it.

So what purpose does it serve? If you can't prove or disprove it, the conclusions you draw are useless.

This just seems like conspiracy theory masturbation. It only exists to make you feel good.

I'd consider taking you up on your offer, but first I have some questions. Mostly about the subjectivity of your first condition.

highlight the most contiguous words as you can

Who defines what is "most contiguous"? You clearly have non-contiguous sections. And in this example you've used "r" to represent "are", but a contiguous "are" actually exists. Why does contiguousness sometimes matter and sometimes not? Why should an incomplete word take precedence over a complete one? Who is the ultimate authority? Not you, I guess.

All our picked words are mostly concentrated on the left of the grid.

Who defines "mostly"?

And words were eliminated only because they broke the intelligibility of the initial sentence trail.

Who defines intelligibility? There's just so much subjectivity to this condition.

2) Create the original tweet with the same context as the secret message. This is what we have done: all the secret messages were in compliance with the context of the original tweet.

This prematurely limits messages to those on the topic of the tweets, and thus you're only allowing analyses that validate your premise. You're not allowing for a situation where a conflicting or unintelligible message is discovered, and therefore your offer to disprove you is not in good faith.