The alternative is treating systems based evidence the same as witnesses. They're examined and cross referenced because they are rightly not presumed to be reliable.

I like this idea but since software and the data that runs through it changes constantly how would a system be interrogated if an incident were several years ago and the complete data picture cannot be reproduced?

Then the maintainers of the system have failed in their duty, the evidence cannot be verified, and it must be thrown out.

It's over simplification of a nuanced situation. Over simplification in either direction is a problem.

A presumption is not a simplification of anything. It is a starting point.

That's fair. But as the article shows, that presumption ends up weighing heavily in favor of computers working correctly. The nuance is in the difference between plumbing, which generally works well, and the bespoke business logic of individual applications, especially when said logic was responsible for the existence of critical evidence in a criminal case. The difference matters enormously and is not observed at all in the law.

The article makes a strong case otherwise. Proving a system built and maintained by a large, well heeled entity is unlikely to be possible for all except other large, well heeled entities.