>we later boosted the multiplier from 1.25 to 1.34x

It was 1.25, but it was boosted to 1.34x. We could see how this might be incorrectly interpreted as a range and we accepted her modified response (and yours) because the current (fixed) value is within that range. 

When we say technically accurate instead of just accurate, it's usually because we interpret the wording as being correct, but potentially confusing. These responses could still win (because the clarity/helpfulness ratings are up to the participants) but we might tweak the wording a little before including in the new FAQ. (i.e. i could say 'from 1.25 to 1.40 and it would be technically accurate because 1.34 is within that range, but just 1.34 is *more* accurate because it's not actually a range)

We originally announced at 1.25x and it was at that level for a few hours after our initial release. I had a conversation that day with @thedarkhorse from @pifc and @minnowbuilder about the calculation and its intent. From that conversation I realized that for the multiplier to work as intended, it actually needed to be 1.34x. I updated our configuration file and it has been set at 1.34x since.