I told you what would satisfy me. Expecting me to be satisfied with something far less is unreasonable on your part.
How, for instance, was it shown that all relevant chance hypotheses had been considered as Dembski's method requires ?
Indeed what exactly does the probability represent ? What is the specification and what chance hypotheses were employed ?
Your article doesn't say - clearly it falls short of showing that the probability represents CSI.
Moroever if your accusation of double standards is not a lie you should be able to reference the posts where:
a) I claimed that a specific piece of work had been done
b) I refused to produce an example.
Please take careful note of these requirements instead of producing something else and then complaining that I should accept whatever you offer even if it falls far short of supporting your own claim.