> Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely
No, if you review what you wrote, you did not. You stated your belief that this looks good for them, and aligns with their strategy, and then concluded it must mean this was done on purpose. Cui bono is not evidence, it identifies suspects. It is not evidence of malice over incompetence.
Evidence is taking a look at possibilities, and going "how would I expect the world to look if this were hypothesis true, before I learned these additional facts?", comparing it to what actual happened, and then you must divide it by how likely you think the hypothesis is, before said evidence.
Sam Altman intentionally positioning his company to commit a felony and be investigated by the authorities for days, just for clout, is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.
Also, importantly, even if we think e.g. Sam Altman would do this, a corporation is not a person, it's operated by individuals with differing goals. I doubt Sam Altman personally is organizing every test of the model, and there is no reason to believe this specific test would be organized by him, as a prior, rather than by a normal security researcher, who presumably is less motivated by the company's bottom line.