The PST comparison I produced formed slightly under 5 pages of the RYBKA_FRUIT document, the length in part due to the size of the tables. The document was 16 pages proper, plus 8 or so (depending upon the version) in appendices.[PST] was roughly half of Fruit vs Rybka document that formed a central role in the final verdict.
Zach's PST comparison consists of just under 3.5 pages in the PDF format, which ran to 24 pages (closer to 22 when subtracting page breaks).
My parsing of modifiers is unsure, but I think the statement refers to the document forming a central role in the final verdict, which may be true, though PST itself did not. Indeed, the Panel Report only mentions it (page 5) as one item among 4 or 5 other elements of Zach's enumeration.
Furthermore, the by-now-typical expostulation that minor bits here and there (in PST, or more generally for evaluation features) are not "copyrightable" remains in tune [so too on TalkChess], though (yet again) I point out that, either from the standpoint of copyright or originality, this misses the point, namely that: quite similar collections of specific bunches of "minor bits" (and/or specific renditions of ideas) are indeed protectable creative expression. See, as one example, the canonical Romeo and Juliet versus West Side Story "plot-stealing" discussion in Nimmer On Copyright.