So did they get 5 right? No - the reinvestigation simply ignored their original suggestion that Mr Grunshaw hadn't claimed for 17 December 2012, but you can see above that he actually did claim from the Office of the PCC for that.
So there were claims the IPCC had missed, dates they have got wrong, mistakes they have made in one report then ignored in the other and 19 instances where they had invented an entitlement that never existed. If you think the IPCC didn't really make this many mistakes about entitlements, have a look at this quote from their second report.
So only 4 out of 28 'no claims' were right, except...
Those on 6 and 26 September 2012 would only have been made after Mr Grunshaw knew his expenses were being investigated, so can't help us establish his state of mind before he knew about the investigation.
So only 2 of the 28 were relevant "no claims".
So the IPCC had made at least 24 false claims, providing an unsound defence for Mr Grunshaw that even he hadn't offered, and these influenced the decision not to prosecute. Their first report had these 24 errors on one page alone, which is all very embarrassing, given that it had spent months in their "quality assurance" process.
And "quality assurance' remains an issue, given their latest report that was supposed to put things right has, so far, 6 errors identified above.
You'll never guess what they did next.
To be continued...