2003: formally correct, but this ignores the 3.6 g/dl increase within 2 - 3 days. Tucker for example couldn't explain a 2.8 increase, and in the meantime we learned it was 3.6. You for example explained it with extreme dyhdration and extreme machine error/bias + typo, all of which coincidentally in Paula's favor. The IAAF chose not to mention that, to nobody's surprise.
2005: formally correct (because the threshold then was even lower than now).
2012: incorrect. You might have missed this discussion from about two weeks ago.
Look up the rules, if (lol) you don't believe me. In such a case, IAAF is supposed to consult with one expert, who will then decide whether or not the athlete's arguments are plausible. If this expert agreed with Paula, it would have been a "routine open and shut case". As you recall, this expert did not agree, thereby necessitating the addition of two more experts to form the three-people committee deliberating the case. Unfortunately for anti-dopers, fortunately for Paula, one dissenting expert is enough to dismiss the case. Case dismissed, yes, but evidently ever so barely.
Indeed there is a good reason. Tee hee.
On the other side, IAAF and WADA criticized Ashenden for evaluating the data with access to only an incomplete data base, i.e. a possibly poorly established baseline. I consider it quite telling that then both IAAF and WADA decided to not look at Paula's baseline in their investigation. Coincidentally Paula chose - against her earlier announcement - to not reveal her baseline, but alas it is mentioned several times in contemporary reports as well as her bio. So yes, it is accurate and important.
Evidently not, or the first expert consulted would have concluded that too.
Why not, one wonders? Well because
a) it is an unprecedented 1.7 - 2.2 g/dl increase from her normal values,
b) the ret-% was in the normal range but is expected to be well below that after an altitude-triggered increase in Hb,
c) we know Paula normally has a ret-% well below normal after altitude,
d) we know that Paula reached "only" 15.6 g/dl after altitude + dehydration.
So yes, again if one considers previous values, this 2012 one is even more damning than as a stand-alone. Weird, isn't it, that neither IAAF nor WADA included Paula's past in their argumentations. In fact, that is against their own guidelines. Surprise surprise.