Wow. Talk about over complicating things. I a lot of the "answers" are plausible that is just people trying to make up congruency. It was a long con. Think backwards instead. They all said "it was real?" (with intentionally bad acting). It was also verified by Radcliffe so at this point we know it was real. Backtrack to the dock where Jack says its' a fake. At this point I felt the storytelling was weak. That was purely for the audience and for those of us paying attention it made no sense. Backtrack further to where they steal the card but the diagnostic checks were all passing with a hairbrush inserted. Because the authenticator was the con man in one of the final scenes. So it was a long con from start to finish. Quit trying to find some hidden meaning. The storytellers just made a mistake in their telling.

Wow. Talk about over complicating things. A lot of the "answers" are plausible; that is just people trying to make up congruency. It was a long con. Think backwards instead. They all said "it was real?" (with intentionally bad acting). It was also verified by Radcliffe, so at this point, we know it was real. Backtrack to the dock where Jack says it's a fake. At this point I felt the storytelling was weak. That was purely for the audience, and for those of us paying attention, it made no sense. Backtrack further to where they steal the card but the diagnostic checks were all passing with a hairbrush inserted. That's because the authenticator was the con man in one of the final scenes. So, it was a long con from start to finish. Quit trying to find some hidden meaning. The storytellers just made a mistake in their telling.