That whole Ram thread recently and what was the Rams "legal age" was a big issue because no one could clarify exactly and prove to the judge what
an 8 year old ram is in the case of that particular ram.
So, the judge really had no choice.
The "evidence" was there, right in front of the judge, but he couldn't make heads or tails of it.
guess in that case, the CO's evidence and definitions were a stronger case.
But the evidence was not there, the point of the decision. There were not enough rings in evidence to prove the ram was 8 yo.

The reason the moose reg was changed was so the new wording was clear and defensible in court, nothing to do with intent. The evidence for either side is the tine or point count, how it may have or may not have come to that is irrelevant. Like the elk mentioned, the count was 5 points, period
Gov't is constantly having to adapt regs to fit what will stand up in court, if the issue is not defensible they don't want to waste resources in a nonsensical challenge.
If the CO thinks an antler has been altered, then the charges shouldn't be about point count, it should be about altering evidence. If that case can't be made, then shake hands and have a nice day