As I mentioned in the article, I feel the card design is “fine.” “Fine” is not “perfect.” The effort put into a design will eventually have a point of diminishing returns, and few design artifacts have enough ROI to justify being “perfect.” Given that Mr. Harvey is a professional, and really had one job, thus I think the card design is “fine.”
(As mentioned in other comments, we also don’t know what preparations the producers took to make sure Mr. Harvey knew how to proceed. I still think it would have to be training that ran completely contrary to the design of the card for a blunder here to be valid. Mr. Harvey announced: 2nd runner up -> winner, which is contrary to the design of the card, and contrary to my memory of how most pageant winner announcements go (as stated in the article). I don’t know enough to make a case on this.)
My redesigning of the card seems to have confused many people of the point of the article. What I meant by it was “the design is ‘fine.’ I’ve seen talk about how to make it ‘perfect,’ but that’s nonsense. Here’s how it could have, very simply, been ‘better.’ However, it’s still ‘fine.’”
The card clearly states who the 1st and 2nd runner-ups are, and Mr. Harvey exhibited, through mention of the duties the 1st runner-up will have should the winner not be able to uphold those duties, that he understood how this “runner up” system worked. It appears something just went haywire in his brain.
Could the card have been designed in a way that would have prevented this error? Mmmmaybe. Does it absolve Mr. Harvey of responsibility? (independent of the aforementioned unknowns about rehearsal) In my mind, definitely not.