I'm saying there's a difference between 89 and 91. One is a double, one is a triple.
I don't think we can really say that a triple jump that is short by 91 degrees is a double.
In fall 2003 when the new system was first introduced for a trial run, they were calling the underrotated triples as doubles. E.g., a cheated 3T showed up in the protocol as 2T. But that led to problems with unintentional Zayak rule violations. So then they started calling them as downgraded triples with the notation 3T<.
3T< is not considered the same thing as 2T, even though it receives the same base value.
According to the rule, it would be accurate to say that that jump receives the base value of a double. It's worth the same as a double for scoring purposes. It's on the wrong side of the cutoff for downgrading. But none of those statements are the same thing as saying the jump was a double.
A cutoff point has to be drawn somewhere. Wherever you draw the line, there will be examples very close to the line on either side -- the so-called gray area.
The rulemakers have chosen to draw the line at 90 degrees. Therefore, according according to the rules, if the jump is 89 degrees short it gets full value. If it's 91 degrees short it gets downgraded.
If the tech panel can't be sure that they have distinguished accurately between 91and 89, they'll give the skater the benefit of the doubt.
If they're sure it was slightly more than 90 but they're not sure if it's 91 or 95, then they'll downgrade it.
We can argue that that cutoff is too harsh, and that 135 or 180 degrees would be a fairer place to draw the line. But then we'd still have a gray area, just in a different place. And people would be arguing that 134 looks very much like 136 or that 179 looks very much like 181.