In defense of my prior post
If so, then ES&S has yet to run election software in any jusisdiction with software tested and qualified by an ITA test lab. This is because the software component executed by the ITA test lab was not the same executable run on machinery during any subsequent election.
Earlier today I posted a retraction for the prior post. I have decide to withdraw that retraction
Upon reviewing the evidence (the text the 3 emails among Craft, Freeman and McDannold), I have decided while it might be possible these three are talking in an moment of unguarded candor about only older ES&S product, I do not this the texts support this interpretation. I stand by my ealier words and my earlier interpretation these 3 were speaking of curren not past ES&S products.
Therefore, I submit my conclusions and the evidence I have for those conclusions to a candid world for judgement. I will take my lumps if deserved.
I do not believe in using the mutability of the intenet as an Orwellian memory hole. But since I withdraw my retraction I have removed my retraction from the prior post. If, you have notice the changing text under the URL, this is the reason.
I hope readers of this post, the prior post and the 3 emails referenced in the prior post can come to understand my confusion.
Steve V. Freeman mentions the specific scanner models (M110/315/550/150) but Paul craft does not correct him on the point the M550 is an old scanner an only M100 and M650 scanners are sold currently by ES&S. Also, Paul Craft states the executable is linked with the ballot information in a single, customized version of firmware without qualification as to which ES&S product he is refering to.
It was pointed out to me, that stating the M550 is not 2202 VVSG qualified is stating the obvious since every ES&S system with which uses an M550 is only qualified to the 1990 FEC standards.
Currently, ES&S admits they do ballot programming for every election and such programming must be done in the Omaha office. My error was in linking these 2 statemetns without enough evidence to support the link. Perhaps, as my astute critic pointed out, the emails refer to the "old" way ES&S did ballot programming and perhaps there is now some "new" way the ballots are programmed for the M650, M100 and PEB's.
For months prior to this, I have been trying to understand why the iVotronic PEB's are computational devices (complete with CPU, ROM and RAM) and what is the truth behind all of the problems in West Virginia and around the country with "chips" "programmed" incorrectly where replacement "chips" must be "re-programmed" in Nebraska before the ES&S equipment can be used in the the target election.
The e-mail comments between Craft, Freeman and McDannold seemed to be an A-HA moment. Where everything clicked into a single, coherent, cohesive, rational whole.
Unfortantely, the explaination that ES&S creates a custom version of programming for each and every election jurisdiction may be incorrect. I believe I am correct. Creating one-shot election programms for each election does fit the current facts known about ES&S machinery. But, I am forced to admit it is not the only explanation which fits the known facts of ES&S machinery. By Occam's razor is seems the most likely explanation.
More investigation is needed.
The question of how the "new" ballot programming for the M100 and M650 is different than the "old" ballot programming of the M550/M150/M315/M115 though needs an immediate answer. Because there is a stong possibility this system architectural feature of the older ES&S products was carried forward into the current ES&S products.
If you are confused then welcome to the world of election machinery where up is down and wrong is right and all done to no-bid contracts.