The pushbullet article indicates an appeal succeeding doesn't mean the issue was fixed to the reviewer's liking. So I wouldn't assume the correlation that LTT's appeal succeeded because of what they did. Google's review process seemingly does not comply to logical reasoning.
Maybe, but he talks about sending it in a few times and only after changing the page's loading behavior it got accepted. Therefore, I don't think there were human reviewers involved at all, otherwise why not spell out the problem directly? Would save everyone's time and reduce the number of interactions.
"Your app was rejected because our crawlers refused to read it" is more accurate but makes Google look incompetent - even if there's legitimate reasons for crawlers to not follow redirects or execute JavaScript.
It looks like some types of reviews might be lazy: the app is accepted after an automated scan, then placed in queue to let human reviewers check it at later date.
This is actually my biggest takeaway from the article.
