I have a hunch that it was a combination of a couple things. I think he said on his Rumble stream the day he was yeeted that he had been keeping records of the boasting and talking about flagging him off of YT since the 2nd strike. Thee fact he is a lawyer, I would assume it was presented in a way that was compelling, even if he had to do it in a hurry at the last minute.
I also think the Texas law was a factor, in that, I don't think Google/YT wanted to have to use his case as a test case against that law. He would have had proof that it was caused by a campaign against him, targeted and coordinated; was against the YT terms of service; and that YT knew all of this and still went along with it.
I think there is/was no way they wanted to have that be the case presented against them as the first case against that law, and I think everything lined up for the Texas AG to take it on. They would much rather prefer some smaller channel, who doesn't have proof that being kicked off was caused by TOS breaking activities and no legal background to be preparing for it for that long.
This isn't an change of heart or good deed by Google/YT, they are scum. This was a cover there own ass move. If Nick is correct, and they removed the 2nd strike, then they removed the one from when he says Lucas should get on the wall but kept it on the last one which is a much weaker strike, IMO.
He still gets 2 weeks suspension, but they don't have to deal with the Texas Law in any meaningful way, yet.