Well, it's very likely that at least one of those two (boon/ct) were telling the truth, and that means that the confirmed town among them was for the lynch. Moreover, by lynching a key suspect outside the dipole, it basically meant that the wolves would have to either sacrifice boon (a CT flip means boon dies D3) or allow CT to live even longer and potentially buy town an extra lynch. And, of course, as it turns out, the Garmr lynch was the "right" lynch by virtue of actually being mafia (which is why I'd really only noticed this post Garmr flip). But mainly it was something where the momentum was heading in that direction, and Sakura's action cut it off. THAT was the key pro-mafia move, and why (now knowing that Garmr was mafia), Sakura's "town credit" for her part in boon's lynch was ill-earned, and as it turned out, other than the town credit from that move, there really wasn't very much townie about that slot.
And this was especially true D3 and later. Sakura's work on D3 didn't look at all like what you'd expect from a near-confirmed townie who was very likely to die N3. Some of that was because she was sick, of course, but even the posts she made had a different look and feel to the pre-boon lynch body of work (and given the high amount of day chat coordination, I suspect a key reason for this was that she could no longer talk to her buddies live). And then, of course, there was Riabi's work, which on D4 and D5 was consistently wolfy. I probably needed to do more to zero in on that, but I feel like I was pretty clear about Riabi all by himself being entirely lynchable as a resume.
Unfortunately, on D6 the rest of the town (you and toast) weren't much interested in game-solving or really working to figure things out (or even working to present your own "I'm clearly town because ___" cases), which were pretty anti-town behaviors that made me start to reconsider my game-solving. Still, Titus's D6 vote on Dier for "NK motive" was pretty clearly BS, which I called out very explicitly, and again no one seemed to much care, which again made me think it was probably Titus but realistically could have been either toast or dier.
And Dier's counter-vote on Titus on D6 (
1862) was pretty awful as well. Just a "well gee, this game is hard, so I guess I better vote Titus". I mean, I now get that you were being honest about it, but that's simply not a legitimately townie thought process (and btw, Titus pushing back on this immediately was a very effective move IMO, and she absolutely out-debated you in that segment). The very least you could have done was engage with my explicit case on the slot (posted D5 and D6) and explicitly say why you agree or disagree.
And then D7... I'm sorry, but D7 was simply bad. Dier, because you know you're town, it's incumbent upon you to present toast with the information he needs to make an informed decision. Titus basically said nothing because she was mafia and wanted to deprive toast of info. You needed to make a case, ESPECIALLY since it was fairly obvious toast was leaning towards voting you.
"Into your hands I commend my spirit."
and
"I'm pleased to have guessed correctly."
... Toasty guessed wrong, and that's to some degree on him, but you gave him basically nothing to work with (not even bothering to go back and highlight what you thought were the most compelling parts of my case against Titus slot). It's simply not fair to ask him to do more work to figure things out than you were willing to do.