This might be overly handwavy of me, but I struggle to see a scenario where a rationale Elizabeth Holmes thinks the expected value of what she did is positive if the standard sentence is 10 years, but thinks it's negative if the sentence is 65 years.

Maybe the takeaway is that criminals (and humans) aren't entirely rational, and 65 years is just a great "headline" for deterrence. But framing this as about deterring rational criminals strikes me as then putting a high burden of proof on the argument for 65 vs 10.