I'm wondering if the tweeter has got her wires crossed? It seems extraordinary to me that the panel wouldn't have got the bundle in advance of the hearing to read through. They would have needed to have read the witness statements, at least, to have been able to say - as they did at the start of the hearing - that they didn't have any questions for them.
The closing submissions they wouldn't have got til the end but, again, I would have expected them to read them before going into camera.
That attendee implies that the next few days are for the panel to read the bundle. They're not. They're for them to decide on the charges that remain in dispute and to write up their reasons why. They'll do so with reference to the bundles, but that's different from them now reading them from scratch.
I make no criticism of any of the tweeters in this. The opposite: I think they're doing amazingly well. But they're suffering a bit by not being familiar with the process and how it works, which sometimes is causing confusion.
This bundle, by the way, is what I was alluding to when I said that I thought tribunaltweets had given an imbalanced view of the evidence. Tribunaltweets hasn't had that bundle, which is the entirety of the GMC case, so has only referred to it when the chair or one of the representatives have said something which is suggestive of what might be in it. We know, from what has been said, that the bundle contains the witness statements, umptibillion tweets, and a glossary of helpful terms like 'terf'. But we know no details of any of that.