The documentary brought more questions than answers. How can you depend on someone's reply to a post as a basis or main evidence for your conclusion? There was not even one compelling evidence that Peter Todd is Satoshi. Just because he claimed to be knowledgeable about C++ and made an erroneous post doesn't make the dude Satoshi. Everyone knows the litmus test to prove who Satoshi is: The private keys to his wallet. I hope Cullen Hoback achieved his aim of making the documentary which is to make money.
I was expecting something shocking with unknown arguments before. Still, then I remembered that this is a documentary made by HBO, which wants to generate revenue by selling HBO subscriptions. Then I also asked myself, if they really found a new satoshi, wouldn't that information be leaked? There is no way their team knew the real identity of Satoshi and someone inside didn't leak the information before the documentary debut.
HBO's argument was that Peter Todd comment - "Of course, to be specific, the inputs and outputs can't match *exactly* if the second transaction has a transaction fee." after Satoshi's post, meant that it was Satoshi himself and accidentally posted via Peter's account. This is funny but at the same time shameful from a company that made one of the best TV shows.