It potentially means a changed outcome, regardless of your definition of fraudulent.

>was legally justified.

Yes it does. That's what everyone is saying. Don't follow the rules, it doesn't count.

If Pence opened envelopes from the Trump electors on Wed, I'd bet you'd think the rules for which votes to reject were important again.

>The judges properly disagreed

No. They punted, based on discretional original jurisdiction and/or standing, depending on the case. (Both based on bad caselaw, themselves.)

Which is ashame, because had they heard the case, it could have prevented all of this.

The question was adjudicated to a conclusion. That you do not accept the conclusion reached doesn't mean a conclusion was not reached. Your acceptance isn't necessary for the result to be the truth.