He didn't claim it was good, he reluctantly admitted it was good. He would have much preferred to reject it. He was the project overseer and did not actually conduct it, which is why he was looking for flaws to serve as a basis for rejection, as is very common for him to do – he doesn't endorse material which is methodologically flawed. He would have much preferred that, but was forced to admit it was valid.
Create an account or sign in to comment