>There's something of a difference between 'alternative scenarios' and demonstrating that the 'settled' story doesn't fit with the limited evidence.

You've failed to demonstrate that, since your second link doesn't show the Ukrainian military disputing the DNC hack, just a separate hack of Ukrainian software, and the first link doesn't show ThreatConnect disagreeing with the assessment. ThreatConnect (and CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and FireEye) attributes the DNC hack to Russia.

>One popular example is that the exploit Crowdstrike claim was used wasn't in production until after they claimed it was used.

Can you provide more info there?