Tommy,
I can't recall, but it seems from your pro Gil. legacy enhancing post, you had something to do with his presentation? (BTW, I love the Gil choice and am pro Gil, too)
That said, none of your opinions after blasting Ron really back up your position on this article or Ron's other writing.....and the bits about the LA Olympics, while probably valid, sort of drift OT. And, it doesn't read as if Gil knew he was the only one being filmed at the time, thus tipping him to the outcome, so it doesn't contradict your point about not knowing until the phone rang.
Again, I have no knowledge of Ron's article and its veracity. As TD notes, of course it is second hand, since Ron wasn't in the presentations, as is most reporting. That said, in comparison to the internet or this group, GD has pretty high standards (as most old line outlets do) and almost certainly wouldn't vet a "nonsensical" piece and then let it be printed. Whenever I have been quoted or mentioned in a GD article, the fact checking squad has called at least twice to make sure the article can be confirmed as factual.
TD notes that its pretty accurate, although I understand the participants would all have minor quarrels with choices of wording, minor points, etc. After all, a journalist has to take the quotes he is given, and still make a value judgement as to what they mean (as when he is writing of Gil and Tom's supposed reactions to working together, especially)
I have little knowledge of the process (I actually saw a copy of Gil's post email summary of how he thought the presentation went, through an industry source, but don't have a hard copy.) From memory, he was upbeat and thought the reaction was favorable by the committee, although he thought his own environmentalist was a bit boring, long and off point. The only rumors I recall was that one of the "Dark Horse" candidates wowed them with a presentation. That actually sounds possible. There have been many cases of this in design interviews in all fields, where the top dog sits on his laurels while the underdog works harder, takes chances, etc.
Lastly, I too have heard from within the industry and some participants the hard feelings of losing a tough competition. None of that sour grapes type stuff rings false to my ear. In many such lower stakes competitions, many of my architect brethren express opinions that the winner had to have some dirty tricks or potentially ill gained inherent advantage up his sleeve, which is not our professions' best trait! I have always felt that when I lose, its primarily my fault for not presenting myself well enough. And, as my Dad always told me, you have to consider that the other guys are pretty good, and trying hard to win, too.
I have been in Tom's position of trying to propose something different, only to be shot down. However, going in as the fifth of 8 firms that focus on the same thing is usually a prescription for losing in an interview, so you feel the pressure to try something, and it becomes an "all or nothing" kind of stake. However, better to be shot down trying that being told "it was a close decision, but you finished second". The reality in those presentations is that only 1 or 2 of the 8 were likely to stand out, and the others all sort of blend together in the reviewers minds, and never get any real consideration.