Fifth, as usual, you are completely wrong.
I used to have my Director posted on this site as a Director and no one took issue with that.
It is now posted on my site as a Director with a note pointing out the fact that the dial does not match the ad because it does not have the diamonds. Thus, I am careful to alert anyone looking at that watch to the fact that the ID is not fully supported by the one ad that we have.
To say that there is no evidence to support the Director ID is ridiculous. Again, I see that you stay true to form in your bizarrely weak analysis and conclusions.
The ad shows the same case, and that case is not seen in another ad. The ad specifies solid gold, which is not that often seen in the ads. The crystal is correct for the Director, per the crystal catalogs. That's more evidence than many of your watch IDs have ever had.
Moreover, we often accept dial variations within a given model ID. I have always accepted dial variations readily and often, both on this site and in regard to my own collection. We accept them as tentative, noting the difference between the watch and the ad. I never asserted that anything different should happen here.
I don't know if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, or what, but I suggest you go back to bed and dream of waking up with more sense. Who knows, maybe a miracle will happen.