> Seems most likely Sustkever wanted him fired and then realized his mistake

We have as much evidence for this hypothesis as for any other. Not discrediting it. But let's be mindful of the fog of war.

> Now they are trying to unring the bell but cannot.

Well, they can unring the bell pretty easy. They were given an easy out.

Reinstate Sam (he wants to come back) and resign.

However, they CONTINUE to push back and refuse to step down.

But the article's exact wording is "Sustkever is said to have offered two explanations he purportedly received from the board" key word being "purportedly received". He could be choosing words to protect himself, but it strongly implies that he wasn't the genesis of the action. Of course, he was convinced enough of it to vote him out (actually; has this been confirmed? they would have only needed 3, right? it was confirmed that he did the firing over Meet, but I don't recall confirmation that he voted Yet); which also implies that he was at some point told more precise reasoning? Or maybe he's being muzzled by the remaining board members now, and this reasoning he "received" is what they approved him to share, right now?

None of this makes sense to label any theory as "most likely" anymore.

Trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

This is pretty parsimonious.

Smart, capable, ambitious people often engage in wishful thinking when it comes to analysing systems they are a part of.

When looking at a system from the outside it’s easier to realise the boundary between your knowledge and ignorance.

Inside the system, your field of view can be a lot narrower than you believe.