I guessed "pincer" on the controversial Shaka clue. Since the "flanking maneuver" Wikipedia page has "pincer movement" under the "See Also" heading, and the article for "pincer movement" says it's also known as "double envelopment," I think I'm good.
Arianna Kelly played two games a few months apart in 2008; she lost the first, and was invited back over a bad ruling. (Between those games, her sister Larissa had much better fortune on the show.)
The clue in question was for $800, and basically asked what metal in so-called tin cans is attracted by magnets; Arianna rang in with "What is iron?" and Alex asked her to be more specific, so she said iron ore and Alex said no. Returning champ Melissa Prusi rebounded by responding, "What is steel?" and got the $800.
Arianna entered FJ in third place, $2,200 behind Melissa. FJ was a triple get, but the player in the lead didn't cover Melissa (I don't think he covered Arianna either, but she hadn't wagered enough to surpass his final score), and Melissa won.
Now, I've always assumed that they knew before FJ that Arianna should have gotten credit for "iron" off the bat. The assumption that follows is that they didn't bother reversing the neg because Melissa's ill-gotten lead would have remained intact, so they decided to wait for the endgame to play itself out, and determine from that whether a change in position would have won Arianna the game. (This theory that they were waiting to see if the ruling error would cost her the game also would go a long way to explain why Arianna came back to the show so soon, since it usually seems to take a season for wronged contestants to return.)
But now that we've had a scoring reversal that retroactively allowed the second correct response to break a lock that the first one ought to have earned, I don't think my idea that TPTB would say, "Well, we screwed the pooch on that ruling and can't truly fix it by undoing the neg, so we'll just see what happens and act on it only if it affects the results," holds much water.
I do think Scott should be brought back, though. TPTB have never claimed that their neg-reversal method sets things right to a point that no further action is necessary.
On the contrary, I offer the example of Milo Dochow, who played in the first Teen Tournament of 1999. He went TDD on the first DJ DD, was asked for a star, named for a subatomic particle, that contained dense material, guessed "quark star," and dropped from $1,900 to zero (with neutron star being the desired response). He fought his way back up to second place by the end of DJ, and then was told before FJ that "quark star" was deemed acceptable, and that $3,800 swing put him in the lead. However, writing "Meditterean Sea" and betting to cover second place put him out of a wild card spot.
Now, J! Archive's player pages on Milo say he was brought back for the College Championship a year later "because of a disputed ruling during Final Jeopardy!", but I don't buy it. I think he was brought back because, in clawing back after zeroing out on that DD, he hit the last one and doubled up from $1,200. If the first DD ruling had been overturned at the point of uncovering that one, he could have gotten to a position for FJ where he could win or finish with a wild card notwithstanding his misspelling. To put it briefly: TPTB probably brought Milo back because he may have lost due to untimely acceptance of his response. We can say the latter clause for Scott, minus "may have" and with a narrow definition of "less than immediate" for "untimely."