I obviously can't speak for anyone other than myself, and I can't speak to anything that I don't know about (which is like, most of it), but I can speak on what I do know:

Even though the section on FRAF was honestly fairly neutral/positive leaning, I can say they did pick and choose from the things I said to twist it into fitting into their narrative, even if there wasn't much to twist. Some notable points that I did explicitly clarify but they excluded are that the list of works are not run by Andrew for approval, and we don't consult the HICU on the list out of any kind of requirement or social pressure. We were literally not ever even asked to, we asked for their input because we value their input. Additionally, he was very clearly trying to lead our conversation into anti-HICU sentiment and was (mid-conversation) trying to spin things I was saying towards being anti-HICU. He very clearly had a goal in our conversation and new what he wanted to get out of it, and wasn't particularly interested in anything that might conflict with it.

While again this was pretty small and our conversation was short, I do feel from my experience here that it lends credence to things I've seen about Gio intentionally manipulating and spinning information to fit his narrative. I am also aware of things in this that are just objectively false and I will be seeing about correcting soon.