minimalized

The alternative is treating systems based evidence the same as witnesses. They're examined and cross referenced because they are rightly not presumed to be reliable.

That's fair. But as the article shows, that presumption ends up weighing heavily in favor of computers working correctly. The nuance is in the difference between plumbing, which generally works well, and the bespoke business logic of individual applications, especially when said logic was responsible for the existence of critical evidence in a criminal case. The difference matters enormously and is not observed at all in the law.

It's over simplification of a nuanced situation. Over simplification in either direction is a problem.

The article makes a strong case otherwise. Proving a system built and maintained by a large, well heeled entity is unlikely to be possible for all except other large, well heeled entities.