Continuing to attempt to use it to push misinformation after being informed is not acceptable.
The election results have been finalized/certified. Therefore its reasonable to assume that the number of rejected ballots is now known. (How could it be otherwise. ) So I'm going to go with the Tabulation website over a fact check article from last month.
The total number of rejected ballots is not known because it isn't necessary to count rejected ballots to determine the election result (ie: they are simply not included in the count).
Again, stop spreading misinformation. Continuing to do so would be malicious.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejecte...
In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN
Page 5 aND 6.
"Georgia argues that the “[r]ejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged” as between the 2018 and 2020 elections, referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20- cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) (“Wood”). Georgia Br. 4. Georgia’s reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis therein related to rejection rates for absentee ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti"
"Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/2020...
The item you've linked (the filing by the Texas AG against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin) is weird.
It seems to think there's some serious difference between mail-in and absentee voting in GA. In GA, the term absentee voting encompasses both early voting and mail in voting. The only absentee voting that has signature verification is the mail-in component (IDs are checked instead for early voting).
And it appears to make the same "error" you've continued to make: it conflates rejection for signature mismatch and rejection for all reasons, when the signature mismatch rejections are a subset of all reasons.