This was a pack of contradictions.  He claims there was no doubt about his pronunciation of the words.  He claims to have a "better recording" where it's clear.

But then he contradicts himself a few sentences later and claims that "one word was slightly mispronounced" ... slightly enough, I take it, to justify a conditional consecration.  If there's no positive doubt, then it's sinful to perform a conditional consecration.

Now, the prior story was that this conditional consecration happened immediately after the ceremony.  This was the story related to us by Tradman as being told by seminarians and others close to the situation.  But now +?Pfeiffer claims that the conditional consecration was performed "the next morning".  So we have contradictory narratives ... which means that someone is lying.

So either there was a doubt, or there was not.  He's claiming BOTH that there was a doubt (by doing the conditional consecration) and there was not (attacking those who claim there was a doubt).

Then at one point he says they "cleaned up the ... audio".  What does that mean?  I could see saying that "we consulted the better audio".  But you wouldn't use an expression like this unless some doctoring was in play.

If the earlier story was true, that the MC noticed it directly while it was being performed, then it's obviously not a function of corrupted audio.