Like I said in the other thread, to score the round for Khabib, you need to believe he outstruck Conor. I disagree, but I think it was close, so it'd be understandable to give the edge to Khabib there. Conor landed the only shot at distance, and landed some hard shots to the temple while Khabib was taking him down.
A takedown isn't considered an attack by the official rules. You've misread or misunderstood them. A takedown or pass is only counted as effective if it results in the fighter gaining an advantage in the striking. So again, it really comes back to whether you think Khabib won the striking. As John McCarthy has said, these rules were worded in such a way as to avoid saying the word "damage", as it sounds bad. I tend to use the word "offense". Submission attempts would count here, but Khabib didn't have any.
You can make an argument that Khabib won in this first criterion, but it's dependent on him winning the striking. I don't think he did. Remember, I've never said it's crazy for you to think Khabib won the round, or called you names because of it, or called your opinion "awful". That's on you.
Aggression should only be considered if "effective striking/grappling" is considered even. And I think it's feasible to consider it even. It's certain that no fighter had a significant edge. So, I'll consider aggression…
Conor clearly won on aggression. On the feet, he was trying to knock Khabib out, while Khabib was trying to grab his legs. On the ground, Conor was trying to get back to his feet so he could knock Khabib out, while Khabib was holding onto Conor's legs, trying to keep him down so he wouldn't get knocked out himself. He attempted no submissions, and wouldn't posture up to land harder strikes, despite having the option.
Khabib clearly won on control, but it's only relevant if everything above is even.
To summarise, if you think Conor won the striking, Conor won the round. If you think the striking was even, then Conor won the round on aggression. If you think Khabib won the striking, then Khabib won the round.
To recap our discussion from the other thread – you made some claims that I showed were wrong, you got upset and called me names, and then you ran away, refusing to respond to me. Should I expect you to return and answer for the claims you made, or do you want to leave them unsubstantiated?