On the lack of evidence:
While the evidence is circumstantial at best, I'd consider it's credibility, in this case, enhanced by,
1) The vagueness, and seemingly contradictory and petty statements of the official termination notice,
2) And how the doc (plausibly) addresses, and gives concrete context and explanation to the above.
Vague termination reasons might work when the reasons given happened behind closed doors, but every livestream is public, which removes the plausible deniability of the infraction happening behind closed doors. A few examples:
Falsely claiming to be sponsored by a brand during a stream:
Given all the available info, what could it possibly be referring to? Assuming it's either the a Raid or Deez incidents, wouldn't "Joking about" instead of "Falsely claiming" be more accurate? "Falsely claiming", while not technically incorrect frames it as intentional deceit, and wouldn't normally be used to describe obvious jokes.
Expressing her will to perform streams using illegal games (also known as pirate games)
I do not know what else this could be referring to, so going by the plausible explanation given, I'd consider phrasing it as "mentioning experience with unofficial versions of games" to be a more precise and accurate description.
Comments that can be deemed offensive to the rights holder of a game during a stream
Once again, I'm not sure what else it could be, and "offensive" can mean up to describing a publisher as being morally bankrupt, using some choice slurs against them and/or making serious, unfounded allegations.
If it was the UNO incident, a more accurate and precise description would be "criticism of a game during a stream".
The willingness to provide information (listing 12 points) contrasts greatly with how imprecise the claims are, and compounded by the fact that the verbiage used almost always portrays a range of severity way beyond the information available, it would reasonably lead to suspicions of intentionally using technically true, but misleading phrasing to exaggerate their claims, because a more precise and clear description, even without naming the actual aggrieved parties wouldn't sound bad enough.
The doc plausibly, and systematically addresses the claims, and given the short timeframe, the likelyhood of spinning a sensible tale decreases with each claim addressed, effectively using the number of claims to bolster their own credibility. It's one thing to spin up a freeform story in the face of a generic termination, but the difficulty of crafting a story that makes sense compounds exponentially as the timeline gets tighter and the number of checkboxes outside their control grows.
I'm also having trouble coming up with other plausible theories on why the VODs were taken down, but that's another can of worms.
This intentional vague wording isn't a new thing really, If the phrasing "life saving medical treatment for children" sounds familiar.
