> the waiver is null and void if the data supplied to the SEC by Twitter is fraudulent.

Look at said SEC filing. It is worded in a way that is impossible to prove fraudulent with the kind of data Musk asked for. He could have proof positive that he is the only human account on Twitter and the Twitter SEC filing would likely not be construed as lying - it very explicitly states that it is a judgment call by the Twitter execs, based on some internal methodology, and that the real number could be higher.

The only way you could prove they lied to the SEC would be if you found emails that say something along the lines of "to the best of our knowledge, 20% of mDAUs are actually bots/spammers, but let's say 5% in our SEC filing".

exactly

Musk has released nothing that would indicate that the numbers are fraudulent.

Read the SEC filing?

"it appears that" = "we have no demonstrable data, but we'd like this to be true, but we're not making a material claim".

I read it, it contains no data, none. But I think you know that and are purposely deflecting.

They have to be not only fraudulent but fraudulent to the point of having a "materially adverse effect" on the value of the company. Delaware courts rarely (almost never) find this to be the case.

bare assertions by elon on a matter touching his pride seem more likely to indicate the opposite is in fact true

e.g. elon calling some dude who wounded his pride on twitter, a "pedo"