The detailed evidence submitted by the No side has convinced me that:
- Facing the camera should not be considered an optional requirement.
- There is no doubt that the person in the submitted photograph would be considered to not be facing the camera by a reasonable native English speaker (33/33 is a very good rate even if the methodology is not absolutely perfect).

The Yes side has failed to address these issues in a convincing way:
- I see no "disregarded evidence" and the Yes side has failed to submit evidence  to that effect.
- The methodology might not have been 100% perfect but given the rate of success (33/33), I do not think it is reasonable to ask for a double-blind experiment. If the Yes side wishes to perform such an experiment, I would of course welcome it.
- The fact that the photograph may be sufficient for some facial recognition algorithms is not particularly relevant in my opinion. The contract requires that the subject be facing the camera, not merely that he may in some circumstances be recognizable. Furthermore a link to a tweet containing a screenshot does not constitute a high standard of evidence. So to whoever submitted that evidence: in the future, please submit IPFS links (not mere WWW links) and explain your methodology and reasoning in detail.