You're not wrong but what we can tell from open sources is:

- The building does seem to have actually been a school and "detached" from the rest of the military complex.

- The school the Iranians claim it was does seem to exist even if it's not 100% clear that's the identical location.

- At the time of the attack school would have been in session.

- The signature of the attack seems similar between all the buildings attacked and we have footage showing a Tomahawk hitting the area.

Another thing we can tell is that the US has to know the truth here and isn't coming out with an official statement.

And I'm saying this as someone who thinks the Iranian regime is evil, needs to be struck down, was trying to acquire nuclear weapons etc.

As to the numbers I agree they are to be treated with suspicion. The Iranians are obviously motivated to lie, inflate them, and treat all casualties as civilians. But we can still try and estimate given the size of the building what would be the number of students. We can also estimate the outcome of the missile hitting the building and correlate with the photos and satellite imagery, and until we have better data use those estimates.

I agree with all of that. My worry is that the Guardian article is not doing any of it, and in fact is damaging the framework for even having such a conversation.. Instead they are repeating IRGC statements without attribution, and establishing them as background truth in the first paragraph. Then building an entire article on that flawed premise. Essentially, their article exists in the narrative universe create by the IRGC. I find that incredibly worrying.