I'm a little bit confused. Are you saying that to Horvath her personal perspective was that it was sexist, that the report said it was not actually sexist, but that doesn't discredit her personal perspective of the matter?
Edits - let me clarify: I think this would go far in explaining why Horvath is reacting as she has been doing to the report. But I'm struggling to understand if this means that the personal subjective interpretation is more valuable to the truth than an objective independent investigation? (Now I think that the investigation on the whole may not have been at all independent - only to ensure that Github was in the clear legally - with no obligation to the truth or to expose any other things - but I think that's out of this side discussion!)
I'm saying they are of similar weight, to be clear Github's interpretation of the events and Horvath's interpretation of the events are both valid perspectives, neither can be invalid, to the party in question. We have to weight them the way we see fit, and the ones that have the most evidence of being generally true.
An investigation found no legal liability of sexism but that doesn't mean there isn't a culture aspect to it. On the other hand Horvath's experience with the founder may have colored her view of the culture.
I'm saying Github's interpretation of events and Horvath's interpretation are consistent, they don't conflict, hence they can both be true at the moment.
Edits - let me clarify: I think this would go far in explaining why Horvath is reacting as she has been doing to the report. But I'm struggling to understand if this means that the personal subjective interpretation is more valuable to the truth than an objective independent investigation? (Now I think that the investigation on the whole may not have been at all independent - only to ensure that Github was in the clear legally - with no obligation to the truth or to expose any other things - but I think that's out of this side discussion!)