Kenneth G. Hartman Consulting Services, LLC put together a website concerning Torrential Downpour specifically: https://torrentialdownpour.net/
This website has a wide range of information concerning many aspects of how police and prosecutors attempt to use Torrential Downpour in cases. Many good explanations. There is too much information on the website to relist here in this article, so only the link is provided.
Though there isn’t a complete listing of everything there is concerning Torrential Downpour. The author and business is certainly knowledgeable, and they appear to have kept contents updated with decent regularity.
The one setback being noticed with the information is that the authors do not seem moved to have the government produce and have the software tested. Instead, more generally saying to accept the government’s decree that their investigation has some measure of validity from the start. Using only provided logs.
Taking the above position seems flawed in at least two ways. First, it leans biased toward the government. Second, it wrongly validates the government and its actors as having credibility where it shouldn’t exist.
While it won’t apply to every case, there is standing where the defense should be contesting the alleged downloads. Such as where evidence of alleged contraband wasn’t found on seized equipment. While in theory this might be done by only viewing various logs, the best measure would still seem to be: force the government to allow third-party independent testing of their software suite.