I addressed this. Bloomberg must press actual legal charges for the takedown to stand,

Why then did you continue to claim: "the copyright strike got reverted and the video restored." ?

YouTube is basically saying to Bloomberg: yeah, we are ruling that this is not infringement,

No they are not, because the decision stands unless Bloomberg doesn't take further action.

Notice the take down notice according to Bloomberg themselves ,was not a mistake made by some form of automation. It was a manually reviewed take down notice by Bloomberg specifically against the video.
Also notice that such a take down notice result in a 100% guaranteed 10 day take down of the video, silencing it for 10 days, where even if restored after 10 days will only receive a fraction of the original views due to the YouTube algorithm not presenting it.

So the Silence part is 100% true and not clickbait as you claim.

IF Bloomberg chooses to pursue the issue in court, the take down will stand even though it is obviously made in bad faith. This is very contrary to your claim that it's already lifted which it is NOT!

that is still only 1 copyright strike

You keep claiming that, as if it has any real relevance. And as if you know how many of these they receive on average, and completely disregarding how easy it is to make a DMCA take down claim, and disregarding how these claims take down channels even when they are obviously not valid.
One aspect of how insane the YouTube practices are on handling these is described here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1fg08j6/youtube_gave_me_a_copyright_strike_for_my_own/

So now if you would care to consider the motivation for the take down, which we don't know for sure, but we do have some circumstantial evidence.
The video was about AI chips used in China that China is not supposed to have access to.
The AI market in China is a $30+ billion per year market for Nvidia. So obviously Nvidia is not interested in it being disclosed about how their chips are sold to China despite being sanctioned.
Also notice that Nvidia is Bloombergs biggest customer. And Bloomberg made a similar video to the one Gamers Nexus made, but where Bloomberg found nothing,

Now consider a billion dollar market is at stake, and Nvidia probably spend more than the total value of Gamers Nexus at Bloomberg per month. How big do you think Gamers Nexus is in that context? They are as I described small, it's like a mouse fighting an rhino.

Now if Nvidia want that video blocked more than 10 days, they can easily have Bloomberg continue their frivolous claim, and have other allies post take down notices against Gamers Nexus and have the channel closed. It's actually insane how easy it is, because Google seems to almost always side with the bigger player, probably because it's the cheapest solution requiring the fewest lawyers.

So the threat to close the channel is absolutely there. And the only real protection Gamers Nexus has is the Streisand effect. Legally they can practically do next to nothing.

If Bloomberg decides to, they can squash Gamers Nexus like a bug with little effort. If you really can's see that you are very naive.