The beginning explanation and breakdown is really factually based and kept clean of writer's opinions. No acknowledgement to the fire and brimstone tone of writers on the right and the, while opinionated, trying to be reassuring tone of the left writers. (Reassurance is good for business, I get it's selfish.) It just doesn't make sense to me to question the reasons the institution gave for the rating change when they're the ones who changed the rating. To downright say, no, it was caused by other things when the person handing out the rating says otherwise is nonsensical. It is one evaluation, based on one set of criteria. Whether incorrect or not in its overall assessment, to argue that the reasoning is not the reasoning they just outlined is to make up your own reality.