This paper addresses concerns about a recent critique of the 2003 Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) conflict mortality study. The critique attempts to provide an alternative estimate for deaths caused by the Maoist guerrilla group, Sendero Luminoso.

Our analysis demonstrates that this alternative estimate falls below what can be observed even from available data sources. Statistically, we identify a subtle selection bias potentially affecting the methodology presented in the critique.

When comparing approaches using tools from statistical decision theory, we find:

* The TRC's original methods may provide more reliable results despite not being without flaws.

* Rendon's alternative approach is statistically invalid due to its lower estimate conflicting with observed mortality data and suffering from selection bias.

While acknowledging the inherent challenges in estimating conflict-related deaths during periods of high violence, we conclude that this refutation highlights significant methodological shortcomings in some recent analytical approaches.