How do we know that the issue was not addressed in a sidebar? Perhaps LDB and JA took the information once they found out on June 25th and told HHJP and HHJP said that the defense questioning and witness had already dispited the 84 times so it was on the record that there was a disagreement about it. Maybe this was a decision above LBD and JA to not re-call the witness.
Also, as much as I can remember, LDB and JA didn't say "84 times" in closing statements. So they were respecting the fact that it was misinformation and not using it in closing.
But I do agree that in theory this is a big deal, and if I were LDB and JA I would be soooo mad at the cacheback people because attorneys depend on their witnesses to have true and accurate information. LDB and JA are not forensic computer experts, how would they know it was wrong?
Can you imagine the mess this would have been if FCA was found guilty? I would guess she would have won an appeal with this information.