In this example, typical of many others, there are two oversimplifications:

1. We give no credit for the first code, using it instead to establish key word(s) as a priori for the second code.
2. For the second code, we assume that nothing can compete with the event observed, the duplication of part of the first code. In fact, there are other possible competitors that do not involve duplication. For example, the second code could have read "The code of G-d is enlightening and specifically designed for the computer age". Or a great many other possibilities.

Item (1) generally results in a large understatement of significance. Item (2) can result in only a small overstatement of significance, so that on balance our final answer is an understatement. This is because, although item (2) presents many possibilities, few of them affect the significance since they are so unlikely to be found in a competing text (remember, the significance is measured by how often we find competing ELS arrangements in other texts).