I think the throwaway actually raises the valid point about the rule being an exceedingly broad catchall. The type primed for selective and weaponized enforcement.
That said, the kids are clearly defenseless in this situation, for blatant plagiarism as well as just being just being factually incorrect in their report.
> The type primed for selective and weaponized enforcement
Theoretically true, but irrelevant because this particular case isn't that.
Yes, it is broad, and probably a bad rule. That said, there is more than enough than that simple rule in this case that points toward intentional academic dishonesty. If he was my son, getting off on a technicality isn’t exoneration in my house.