You're not following. The fact this witness is giving to the court is about the analysis he has done. He has told the court those were his results and they suggests to him there was fraud in Michigan. These two things are facts and they are accurate. Then you need to go to court, present his evidence, and the fact you are asking the court to find is that there was fraud in Michigan. So one fact is about this guys experience, the other fact is about the truth of your claim.
Where you are getting confused with affidavits, is you think the affidavit is there to prove fraud. They are proof of what the witness saw, or what an expert witness thinks, and the court uses that information to make a finding. In making it's finding, the court accepts the facts given in the affidavit. By that, it accepts that this guy analysed numbers and his believe is that it suggests fraud. He's trying to act like an expert witness. In other cases with regular witnesses saying I saw a truck of ballots arrive, the court accepts that as a fact, but it won't necessarily make a finding that the truck did show up and deliver ballots if there is a better alternative explanation of what the witness saw, or if the witness is just confused, and so forth.
When you're doing a preliminary investigation, and you rush it to get it in by the court deadline, tonnes of mistakes get put before the court. It's not a big deal. It's only a big deal if you lie, or if your mistake is totally ridiculous as to destroy your credibility. In this case he fucked up the Mi. The rest of his analysis would still be taken into account, or it would if he was a proper expert witness rather than some random guy pretending to be.
