And another thing-
If we accept that the original DR not only glossed over Junko's actual talent, but the situation brought about by Jin Kirigiri himself
Then isn't it just a wee bit odd that we're supposed to just, take the V3 situation on the face without question of its reliability?
Let me see if I can put this another way...
In Undertale, there's a certain character who is written as two very different things simultaneously. The duplicitous nature of this writing (in that particular case, both 'a character in a world' and 'metatextual stand-in' at the same time) is what causes there to be a lot of confusion - and variance - in peoples' interpretation of them
While not the same nature of duplicity of course, it's just to offer a little perspective- this is at least the extreme kind of 'perception split' I'm trying to get at genuinely being written into V3. Not just for Ouma, but the entire game, which makes a lot of events canonically contestable right from the very beginning
If it wasn't enough that the game began with an unreliable narrator, we even have a change of narrators, with the latter one having been a part of the first murder's setup, at times outside of our POV entirely. And there is even later evidence obscured in a room as per the narrative itself (Kiibo's upgrades!) as well as a piece of evidence visible to us that was obviously made for show (whiteboard with photographs on!) so there's a good chance our narrator is also missing more things that are relevant to the situation, because it wasn't an isolated incident that you could blame on the writing having hiccups, but an undeniable part of how things unfolded...
This is where I'm not understanding where the line is drawn, between things you can differ on and things that are just... reality. Because how do you explain this whole situation if it's not duplicitous writing?