A good protest committee will avoid off-the-hip conclusions such as "It looked like enough room to me" or "It didn't". Instead, they will break down the incident into a sequence of steps, and analyze the obligations of each boat at every point that they change. PC will nail down hard facts, such as boat proximity, speed, and closing times. Proximity and speed can be very difficult to estimate, so unless instrumentation is available, closing times are generally more accurate.

Now, we are seeing widely varying estimates of distance, speed, and course from watching this video, so it's no surprise that different people reach different conclusions based on what looks like "enough" or "not enough room". Therefore, let's try to be more analytical. As I said before, I see Artemis begin to head up at time 0:12. I see her jib luffing about her mast at time 0:14, so that's when I call her head-to-wind. I see Groupe Edmond changing course beginning at time 0:15.

Now, at the moment Artemis passed head-to-wind, she forfeited right-of-way (see rule 13), and entitlement to mark-room (see rule 18.2(c)). Instead, she is obligated to keep clear of Groupe Edmond. One second later, GE starts taking avoiding action (changes course and slacks sheets). I think one would have a very hard time convincing a jury that Artemis completed her tack, and then gave Groupe Edmond enough room to keep clear all within that one second. Personally, I don't believe that a catamaran that takes 2 seconds to go from close-hauled to head-to-wind, can go from head-to-wind down to close-hauled on the opposite tack in less than that. GE had to take avoiding action while A was still tacking and therefore the keep-clear boat. Thus I conclude that Artemis broke rule 13. Given that Groupe Edmond continued to take avoiding action but could not prevent collision is (in my opinion) prima facie evidence that A did not not give GE room to keep clear after completing her tack. Therefore Artemis also broke rule 15. I don't see anything to indicate that Groupe Edmond's actions were not prompt, nor unseamanlike, so I don't believe she could have reasonably avoided contact. Therefore, GE did not break rule 14. Artemis, however, could have avoided contact (by not turning so close) and therefore did break rule 14.