I think that's putting too fine a point on it -- finer than a court is likely to.
The algorithms behind "PageRank" are, in the opinion of Google's management, an objective way of determining the importance of individual web pages. They make whatever changes they see fit to PageRank and those algorithms in order to bring greater relevance to search results for given queries. Their opinion, further, is that those changes enhance the ability to judge "the significance of a particular web site as it corresponds to a search query."
A key passage in the Order is this:
Google could not say for example, "the SK sites now have fewer links to them than they used to;" that would be provably false. But they can say "our measure of the significance of these sites is lower than it used to be. We call that PageRank, which is a combination of mathematical procedures and measurements and some other tinkering we do once in a while to help to more accurately reflect our opinion."
No matter what machinations go into determining PageRank, then, for any given site Google themselves can decide the relative significance of pages and of sites -- in any way they choose.
Google can have it both ways, because the above is a mixing of First Amendment arguments made in a courtroom with marketing claims. The "vaunted objectivity" is PR ("public relations," not "PageRank"); but "a statement of opinion... which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection" is a legal principle.
[edited by: JayC at 11:26 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2003]