Her reasoning is quite straightforward to understand. She is contending that the vote counts reported are not reliable due to the security vulnerabilities of the voting equipment and software that was used. She is advancing circumstantial and opinion evidence in support of her claim, which is exactly the kind of evidence that could possibly be available to her at this point.
Really, it comes down to whether her evidence is credible, and whether it provides a reasonable foundation to defer certification of the election until full investigation and audit can take place. The documents and information necessary to such an audit are, necessarily, not in the possession of the plaintiffs at this time.
If the courts are persuaded by this circumstantial evidence, they have 2 remedies available to them. They could exclude all of the votes that were tallied that are subject to these problems (in some states, that might be all of the votes, in others, just some of them). If that remedy would benefit her client, I'm not surprised that she would ask for it. However, I think the more likely remedy is to order an audit and investigation of all these suspect election procedures, whether that's signature matching, vote tallying at individual voting machines, or the reporting and consolidation of individual machine tallies and a precondition to completing the process of certifying the election results and appointing electors.
Each state has another remedy available. They can declare the results of the election to be unreliable and call a special election "do-over".
Not that complicated at all.
