How could you have factual evidence? Wouldn't that require something like theft of ballots, thumb drives, or databases? Wouldn't that theft open someone to charges of theft of government property and fraud? The closest thing to actual "proof" is sworn statements by poll watchers and others involved with the process. Courts see what they want to see and disregard the rest for one "legal" reason or another. There was no "proof" of what was wrong with the 737Max software until it was investigated due to questionable things like a couple of planes apparently flying themselves into the ground even though most others didn't. If there was "proof" of fraud, the courts would supposedly be all about prosecuting the guilty rather than forcing election commissions to allow investigations of some unexplainable events - which might be explainable if they were opened to scrutiny. Who won isn't the big issue; that elections are free of fraud and favoritism is the issue.
Your post hits the high points. The Trump and Powell legal teams have no force of law at this point. They are establishing with affidavits current and prior concerns (all the way into this election cycle) of serious concerns with voting system infrastructure, even from Democrat politicians. That is aside from the
blatant illegality of state officials displacing election law with impromptu rules;
this alone could result in the invalidation of nearly 700K votes in just PA. There are two fundamental legal fronts;
hiding in plain view are the illegal actions of state officials - more than enough in some states to swing the entire election - and then the allegations of election systems and voter fraud.
This is how cases are established. For those demanding "let's see the evidence!" - this is exactly what is termed
evidence, providing a reasonable legal basis for court acceptance; requesting relief and investigation of allegations
with the ability to subpoena, demand election records and data, and compelling sworn testimony, not simply rely on statistical improbability and voluntary disclosure.
The Trump/Powell legal team started out badly disorganized. Now we're seeing focused suits with affidavits, expert witnesses, constitutional protection arguments, and violations of both state and federal laws. It doesn't matter what lawsuits have been presented thus far or their disposition. I expect lower courts will have to consider these arguments and if they do not, see appeal and acceptance by SCOTUS.
The intent of the profuse expansion of mail ballots - a shite form of voting the preponderance of first world countries eschew - was by design to overwhelm the ability to scrutinize the election results. John Roberts could have averted this particular disaster by doing his damned job and nipping this in the bud in PA, thus setting the tone for all states with rogue officials wiping their ass on Art. II and state election laws.
Now it'll have to be done the hard way.