He made a claim and parenthetically attached two "facts" to that claim. Is it's your position that those "facts" were totally unrelated to the claim to which he attached them?
"To Steve, I expressed my disappointment that he didn't go through proper journalistic practices in creating this piece. He has my email and number (along with numerous other members of our team) and could have asked me for context that may have proven to be valuable (like the fact that we didn't 'sell' the monoblock, but rather auctioned it for charity due to a miscommunication... AND the fact that while we haven't sent payment yet, we have already agreed to compensate Billet Labs for the cost of
their prototype)."
Before I put words in your mouth, is this your position, or are the "facts" he attached to the sentence related to said sentence? If they are related, in what way, if not to bolster his claim that GN could have asked him for valuable context in creating the piece?