Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia gave an affidavit as part of Sydney Powell's "Kraken" lawsuit. It's largely speculation based on his experience and on media reports and has remarkably little in the way of actual analysis or data.
One of the few direct claims of evidence revolved around the New York Times data feed, which is claims shows things that "demonstrates data manipulation by artificial means,""does not occur in the real world without an external influence," and "are cause for concern and indicate fraud."
He concludes:
So let's look at one of his data points:
This is based on the NYT data, which was available on the NYT website in JSON format, and can easily be converted to a spreadsheet, although it does require a little code to get the date and time into a usable format. Keshavarz-Nia's example is PA (Pennsylvania), here's the graph of the votes for Trump and Biden.

These are not exact figures, because the NYT data only stores percentages of the total votes, and not the individual vote counts, but it generally shows what is going on.
So what of Keshavarz-Nia's claim that "in PA, President Trump’s lead of more than 700,000 count advantage was reduced to less than 300,000 in a few short hours, which does not occur in the real world"?
We can see from this graph that this is simply nonsense. Trump gained that 700,000 vote lead, in six hours of counting. Far less time than it took Biden to get it back (about 12 hours).
To his broader point: "This abnormality in variance is evident by the unusually steep slope for Vice President Biden in all battleground states on November 4, 2020. A sudden rise in slope is not normal and demonstrates data manipulation by artificial means." We can see from the correctly plotted graph that there is no "sudden rise in slope". Other than the occasional jumps from precincts or counting centers reporting a large batch, the slope of both lines gradually decreases. This is hidden slightly by the overnight pauses where the slope is flat, but if we mark those, then we can see each days slopes have no sudden rise. If anything there's a sudden fall from day-to-day.

Keshavarz-Nia's argument here seems to be purely on personal incredulity of incorrect data analysis. And since this is one of the few times he uses actual numbers, it raises significant doubts as to the quality of his more speculative testimony.,
One of the few direct claims of evidence revolved around the New York Times data feed, which is claims shows things that "demonstrates data manipulation by artificial means,""does not occur in the real world without an external influence," and "are cause for concern and indicate fraud."
These are not exact figures, because the NYT data only stores percentages of the total votes, and not the individual vote counts, but it generally shows what is going on.
So what of Keshavarz-Nia's claim that "in PA, President Trump’s lead of more than 700,000 count advantage was reduced to less than 300,000 in a few short hours, which does not occur in the real world"?
We can see from this graph that this is simply nonsense. Trump gained that 700,000 vote lead, in six hours of counting. Far less time than it took Biden to get it back (about 12 hours).
To his broader point: "This abnormality in variance is evident by the unusually steep slope for Vice President Biden in all battleground states on November 4, 2020. A sudden rise in slope is not normal and demonstrates data manipulation by artificial means." We can see from the correctly plotted graph that there is no "sudden rise in slope". Other than the occasional jumps from precincts or counting centers reporting a large batch, the slope of both lines gradually decreases. This is hidden slightly by the overnight pauses where the slope is flat, but if we mark those, then we can see each days slopes have no sudden rise. If anything there's a sudden fall from day-to-day.
Keshavarz-Nia's argument here seems to be purely on personal incredulity of incorrect data analysis. And since this is one of the few times he uses actual numbers, it raises significant doubts as to the quality of his more speculative testimony.,