Based on the secret testing. Donofrio @lcdlaw1 on Twitter disagreed with this and it sounds to me as a layman that he's right. His main critique is that Thompson got the standard wrong, which was substantial compliance, established in Miller v Picacho. In that case, where it was quoted in Reyes (applied it to ballot signatures), the judge said all ballots in Miller were noncompliant. So Thompson said that had to be proven here: even one compliant ballot would suffice. Well no, one-ballot compliance is not substantial. He also said they'd have to redo the EPM if they agreed with Lake, and suggested that's not practical. I doubt that has any legal basis, in fact it sounds made up like his other rulings.

Donofrio if you dig through his twitter says there is a provision in the EPM that allows Maricopa to test after certification. Merissa Hamilton says page 69 of the EPM refutes some or all of this but I don't see anything there and unlike Donofrio, who posts numerous screenshots to explain, and is extremely generous with his time, Hamilton gives no further explanation. The 2019 EPM can be read below, just scroll to p. 69
https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/3314621/az-2019-elections-procedures-manual

Additionally, Donofrio says the Secretary of State's certification is required to test hardware and software/system, but county certification is NOT: it's hardware only. Therefor, the tabulators did indeed meet the standard, which if true is a garbage standard and no surprise the EPM was written by Hobbs and signed off by Ducey. Reprogram the memory sticks and put them back in, but they're still the same hardware.

This would show a glaring vulnerability in the law/EPM, but it would not be legally actionable for 2022: laches would apply here.

Further, Donofrio says (and he sources his claim in the EPMs/ARS) that signatures must be compared to the voter's original registration signature, not the most recent one on file from last election's ballot envelope, or any other on file; then, the others on file could be used to supplement this comparison, but comparing signatures from different elections to validate the envelope goes against either the EPM, or the EPM was changed to go against the ARS, I don't remember which--search his Twitter. Then there were the inconsistencies in Valenzuela's testimony.

But it looks to me like Thompson will side with Maricopa no matter what and I suspect the same for AZ Supreme. Lake's team would have to know this. Perhaps they are going forward with a legally unsound argument because it's impossible to win the case, and in actuality it's a media campaign to inform the public.

SCOTUS could go either way but I'd be surprised. I see this case as a test of the court system and expect the courts to fail the test.