A Record of a Chess.com Bug Report

This is a verbatim copy and paste from a conversation with staff following a bug report which was denied by the same. Because it is a long and convoluted explanation, I am keeping this on my blog as a record in case the original conversation gets deleted.

I feel like I'm being gaslit. I'm a chess.com power user and I've discovered dozens of bugs on this website from my experimentation on analysis, libraries, bots, practice, and more. I know the website's fundamental logic well, and I've been helping you improve the website. Now I'm being told my knowledge is not only wrong but irrelevant, against all evidence.

This article on your support page very clearly states that puzzles are chosen specifically for having "only one clear winning line," with no mention of alternate lines. This is especially important in puzzle rush, where I discovered the puzzle in question - users always play the first winning line they see because they know there is supposed to be only one of them and there isn't a faster one.

If the support page says there must be only one winning line, and the puzzle is improbably contrived in such a way that there is only one winning line due to technicality, I think Occam's Razor is that this is not just a coincidence but either an intended effect or a bug. Your explanation requires an additional assumption - on top of coincidence - that the Support page is wrong, but in that case the Support pagecontains an error.
If it's a bug, you should remove the puzzle and tweak your algorithm to prevent future instances of this happening. If it's a coincidence, I ask you to remove the puzzle and tweak the algorithm anyway because it interferes the smooth experience of puzzle rush where any winning line is always the correct and only line; this is especially important because I expect a majority of puzzles on the website are solved through puzzle rush.
And if it's still just intended behavior as you explained - even though your claim that the 50-move rule doesn't apply has already been disproven - you should fix your support page to reflect that. Additionally, if you won't officially label this bug in your internal documentation, I'd like to speak with a more managerial staff member. I am a paying member of this site (instead of the free LiChess) and your product's quality is important to me.

Finally, your previous statements have given me cause to doubt that new puzzles are in fact being added. In the chess.com May update article, you proudly declared that you had added 3,835 puzzles to the database (and you'd been posting puzzle additions and removals in previous months). In June, you admitted you'd added just 403 puzzles that month, a meteoric drop-off. Since July, there has been no mention of new puzzles at all! Is it another coincidence that puzzle numbers stopped being touted just one month after the rate of the puzzle database's greatly slowed? With puzzle 1654612's bug, I'm more inclined to suspect there is something systematically dysfunctional about your algorithm, and I'd hope to hear you guys are working on a solution rather than denying a problem exists.