Would you have felt better had they done so? Would you have believed what they wrote?  The ref had a specific duty, to bring any ball lower than 12.5 PSI up to that limit.  this was done.  The ref can testify to this with sincerity and certainty.  writing it down would not change the strength of that testimony one iota.  Now had the process been video'd, maybe that would offer some small scintilla of greater assurance, but many would question whether the video produced was the video from that day.  Apologists have offered this red herring before.  You were in the thread at the time.  You continue to off4er tired excuses, hoping to convince who, yourself?  Good luck with that.
		
		
	 
 I like how you state things that are unproven with authority, like: "The ref has a specific duty, to bring any ball lower than 12.5 PSI up to that limit.  This was done."
Yes, assuming the conclusion makes the conclusion correct.  QED.    
		 
		
	 
I assume this is so since the refs, as you and others have stated by implying this was a sting, knew and were specifically admonished to do so, an extraordinary event in the life of a ref, and for a playoff game, specifically remembers that he did so.  Testimony, and circumstances for remembering are sound evidence.  Again, I know there is no proof for you which will satisfy your unwillingness to listen and learn.  In fact I was responding to a post specifically about a complained lack of diligence and was raising the question of whether the diligence some would have artificially placed on the process would make an iota of difference in the reliability of the testimony. I realize from your posting in this thread that much of this goes over your head.  That is to be expected when one's head is alternately up their ### or buried in the sand, but do try to keep up.
		
 
		
	 
 Well, I don't remember saying or implying this was a sting.  Maybe you have me confused with Don Yee?  Speaking of which, I'd ask whether you and Don Yee both took the "How to be a Biased Blowhard" class at UVA Law, but it is more probable than not that anyone who actually went to a good law school would be working at a prominent law firm or corporation, instead of working as a lawyer for the city.  Nice job finding a career that is basically last choice for any respectable law student.    
 
Also, you seem to deliberately go out of your way to advertise that you are a lawyer, by constantly dropping words common in first year law school books like iota, quantum, and scintilla. Not very impressive. (Actually, to anyone who has taken Latin/Greek in high school, it is even less impressive).    
 
Now back to your sad argument, where you use another assumption to prove your prior assumption.  Are you saying that this day was so extraordinary for the ref, that he had a laser focus on doing his duties properly and remembering things?  This is demonstrably wrong.  Let's recap all the ways the ref screwed up:
1) He wasn't sure which gauge he used.  It was so hard to remember -- there were 2 of them!
2) He lost track of a bag of balls pre-game
3) He lost track of a bag of balls at halftime
To you this, this is all proof positive that the ref is an unimpeachable source.  To anyone who will listen and learn, it is obvious you have an axe to grind vs. the Patriots.  At least Don Yee is paid well to be biased, what's your excuse?