A different "razor"

You know about Occam's Razor. Here is another such principle:

If you have a hypothesis that does not explain significant and interesting details, then the hypothesis must be wrong.

I apply this to the current situation with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. That a lone shooter named Tyler Robinson took it into his own head to do the shooting is a hypothesis that does not explain things like: why the FBI drone surveillance was turned off at the precise time the shooter used his drone. Or why the Israelis were searching on "Tyler Robinson" and the name of the judge presiding at his trial the week before. Or the failure of coordination with local police. Or the strange stuff about the bullet and about his chief of staff.

It follows that the "sole shooter" hypothesis must be wrong.