Thanks but I don't understand how either of your replies are responsive to my questions.

The number of reported/memorable fraud scandals is not itself a reliable indicator of whether the proper controls are in place. It is only an accurate estimate of the actual fraud if you already assume the controls are working.

I don't know what you mean about "contesting" entries. The original report implied people could review the voter rolls - not just their own entry, or some small number of intentional challenges - by going in person. If they can review the names & addresses of all voters, stalkers/abusers could leverage that. If instead they can only "contest" certain entries by name after specific articulable suspicion, that's a much narrower kind of review, which again seems to offer none of the protection against insider fraud that exists in more transparent democracies.