There is a growing sinkhole-sized need for some things to be simply clearer.

Does ruliltg the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent exculpatory value effected non-existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evidentiary error, contravene constitutionally guaranteed substantial rights by applying standards of Strickland u. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum?

Does it breach well-established law to rule that actual existing conflicted representation, memorialized by counsel in writing, does not require upholding voluntary "knowing and intelligent" standards for valid waivers of substantial rights?

Does ruling the substantive nature of materially relevant documentary evidence with apparent exculpatory value effected non-existent, without applying any statutorily required standards of evidentiary error, contravene constitutionally guaranteed substantial rights by applying standards of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in a vacuum?