There is another variable you neglect to mention. His judicial history.
It is well known that he has history of siding with the powerful in the vast majority of his judicial decisions. Corporations or government over citizens. This s a reflection of favoring power, which is indeed the mindset of an abuser.
His behavior under testimony is also a reflection of someone who believes they are above questioning. It’s not just a matter of being “cornered”, it is truly his world view that he is too privileged to be questioned, while Dr Ford is not as privileged in his mind.
This is also reflected by his refusal to take a polygraph, even when he wrote a judicial opinion in 2016 basically endorsing the use of polygraphs for screening tools for employment. Which is what this process is, a job interview.
It is also illustrated in his objection to an FBI investigation on the matter. He represents the government yet objects to that very government performing an investigation. What would his view be in his own courtroom if a plaintiff objected to an investigation which could well clear their name?
So I am afraid your mathematical model is a bit too simplistic and has more variables than you have taken into account. It may not be but does have the appearance of being intentionally weighted to reach a certain conclusion.