Yeah, except there was no real arguments that I could've gotten at from your posts. I tried to reply to every part of your post as did like three others before me, so I'm not sure where your argumentum ad personam comes into play - I was simply stating how weak that argument was.
Ah, math and probability. I love this. First, the law of large numbers applies when there is an expected value or when the frequency of events are fairly equal after a large number of trials. We're talking about how viable Mega Latias is currently, not its usage. Regardless though, not sure how this applies in our scenario (pokemon) at all, especially since you're comparing "huge numbers of situations" to 22 usages. A win/loss heavily depends on team matchup, experience, hax, and other underlying effects rather than a simple heads or tails coin toss (which is used to describe the law of large numbers a lot). You can't count 22 as a large number in mathematics connotation (not even close in statistics and probability), and that would be an example of gambler's fallacy (since you seem to like this kind of stuff) - like someone before me posting about Zone's 70% win rate lol. So yeah, I don't think your argument with law, given that math is always true to itself and never changing but pokemon isn't (especially in ORAS, where any team and any player could beat any other team and player regardless of skill at times) applies here. If there's nothing more true than math, we should just move Magnezone and Reuniclus to S since both had higher win% than Clef.
The ladder is also horrible and I'm not sure I really followed your logic there. "On ladder there are tons of bad and good players so skill shouldn't make a difference, right?" (???)
Now that we're on it, I also wanted to point out that the sole game Mega Latias was used in during the semifinal, it was vs Mega Sableye, Talon, Clef, Hippo, Ferro, and Starmie, and it was the BoltBeam T-Wave set, which is completely useless against this team and not even the CM set we're talking about (and another example of mu coming into play).
Lastly, Mega Latias hasn't really failed to 'prove itself in huge number of ladder plays' for me - I'm actually quite satisfied with how it performs a lot (not all) of the time, as I'm sure others do too, and I don't think that's a solid enough statement for it to drop. So if you think it should drop, please stay away from stuff like raw math that's taken out of context w/o replays/evidence and stick to Mega Latias' true cons, which is the only way the vr team will drop it in the first place. That's as much as I'll say on that.
TBH I've never been a Klefki fan at all, but I don't think it would fit in B+ with the other mons in there. I never find it hard to spin/defog after hazards (although it's good paired with Bish), and it's frailer than I'd want a steel/fairy type to be with all the hard hitters running around in the current meta. It either runs dual screens or status and it's good utility for offensive teams, but that's about it. You made good points for it to remain B, but I'd think if anything it's more likely to drop than rise, I just haven't used it at all to give enough support for either.