> How this invitation was phrased or delivered

This is irrelevant for the theme. Some could came in a plane and other in a car, but who cares? Is assumed that either they were invited or wouldn't had walked on the building and asked about how improve google for hours. I assume that Google has some level of check-in security at least.

> claimed that no such sites existed?

claimed that they weren't shadowbanned, that is a different thing. And they were said that only some pages were affected. This means implicitly that google was aware that the webs existed.

It’s irrelevant because reaching out to shadow banned companies does not seem like a rational thing for Google to do and and while we may dislike Google they do at least seem rational.

I initially read this article with sympathy, but something isn’t adding up

I think you meant it's relevant.

And that's exactly the point: How do you invite "shadow-banned" site owners specifically, without stating why or how this select group has been identified (and denying that anyone's shadow-banned)? This is an obvious question that's ignored by the article.

Yes, relevant. I use voice dictation and sometimes it fails.

Irrelevant? HOW? It's central to the entire topic. The guy claims that shadow-banned people were singled out and invited to participate in this thing. Given that Google denied their existence, how did Google phrase the invitation?

"Hi! You've been invited to join a select group of people we totally didn't shadow-ban, to discuss the shadow-banning that didn't happen. We look forward to seeing you and getting your input on not being shadow-banned!"