Fair enough. You may well be right, we will see in due course, I suppose. It's just a hypothesis that meets most of the outstanding questions I have on the PL process. So I am comfortable with it.
And don't forget the club may say they have cooperated fully, but the PL obviously doesn't think so because non-cooperation is one of the alleged breaches. So there is a dispute between what the PL wanted and what the club gave. Bearing in mind the court order to comply with the PL's infoemation requests, I can't imagine the club has withheld information required by the PL rules in the relevant years. So I am left with things they asked for that the PL rules didn't specifically require to be handed over. Add to that the recent rule change requiring external evidence and the club's apparent (reported) recent challenge that new rules can't be applied retroactively and it all makes sense to me.
Could all be bollocks, though, granted :)
For what it is worth, I don't exactly think you are 'wrong'. I am just not convinced but I get that is your own conclusion and I understand how you came to it. As you say, time will tell. In many ways, probably best if you were right, as it would make it far simpler, possibly.