I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.
If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability.
If you can be double guilty of something then does that mean you get to serve two sentences for the same crime too?
Reminds me of high school statistics class, when the teacher read out in class after a quiz, "[Name] answered negative 4% for the probability in question 3. This is in fact the probability that [Name] passed the quiz."
I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.