I don't think that's what Kavanaugh was doing. If you're thinking of taking those 83 into account in your ruling, but you aren't exactly sure that they're solid, you ask a question: Hey, Google, explain to me why these are important. It doesn't mean that he's dismissing them. It is at least as likely that he's considering relying on them, and wants to have a solid justification for doing so. (Remember, Oracle also claimed that the world would end if the court decided for Google.)
Fair enough. I hope that was indeed the case. I also think that Google lawyer went into legal technicalities with merger doctrine, etc. (which I don't understand) without trying to provide real life analogies (with all their caveats) which some justices tried to do instead.
One analogy that comes to my mind is that the steering wheel, gas and brake pedals, hand brake, etc. are like APIs of a car and are implemented differently in a gas car vs. an electric car. It makes sense for an electric car company to stick to that API rather than replace the steering wheel with a joystick or buttons and have all drivers learn this new method to drive a new car. It would've made more intuitive sense
