I agree with your analysis. This has always seemed a situation driven by ego rather than rational thought and I expect ego will prevail and we will see futile legal + PR trench warfare for a while. However, my understanding of M&A law[1] is it's not enough for him to say that the numbers are missing or even wrong. He has to say that there was a material breach caused by the fact that the numbers were missing or wrong.

So if you say "I went into this deal thinking twitter had no bots and OMFGBBQ there are bots" then twitter are going to say "look at our numerous filings on bots and why not actually go on twitter at all you can see there are bots" and therefore no material breach. He has to show somehow that the failure to provide him with complete and accurate information somehow makes the deal materially worse than he could reasonably have thought going in. And that's pretty hard to prove. I believe Delaware has been very reluctant to find material breach in these sorts of circumstances. (eg even if he was to somehow prove that the bot problem was 100x worse than twitter's public statements I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prove an actual material breach given the difference in ad revenue between "lots of bots" and "hella bots all over the place" is probably not material and he knew the revenue number going in).

My expectation is he wants to make it painful enough for them in court and on social media to drop the breakup fee but they have seen for ages that he was likely to attempt this and would be sued to hell and back by other shareholders if they drop the fee and therefore will strap themselves in for a fight.

[1] I'm definitely not a lawyer but I have been involved in a few M&A situations and have been advised on this kind of thing by pretty good lawyers a couple of times.