Three things particularly struck me in reading this response. Firstly, how could they say "At no point in any of the films is it clear that Moseley’s horse hit the horse on its outside ... there was no identifiable interference"? You can not put a horse's shoulders into a half gap without hitting a horse, in this case it is clear from the vision that contact was made with both horses. It is difficult to imagine how 3 stewards could conclude otherwise. Makes me worry that it is not just the digital steward's vision that is poor quality.
Secondly, nowhere does Mr. Clement claim that the horse slipped in the incident. The conclusion is that the horse lost its footing and went off balance, not that it slipped. He refers to the reason for abandonment being the "shifting horse". He didn't actually say what caused the horse to go off balance.
Finally, he now adds that the other reason for abandonment was the inconsistent track surface. If it were inconsistent to a point of being unsafe then surely the core sampling, penetrometer readings and physical inspections would have indicated this and they should have abandoned the meeting BEFORE race 1. Instead, despite this knowledge that the track was unsafe, they have again put horses and riders health and safety at serious risk before deciding to abandon.