The "patch" has always appeared to be a simple overlay of the window coaming footprint to me
On 2-2-V-1, the distance between the staggered 5/32" rows is about 1 1/2". In the Miami photo, the distance between the lower rows appears much closer. If 2-2-V-1 was just this simple cover, why would the distance increase? Could the distance between the lower staggered rows have increased because a stiffener was added? Possibly required due to the hard landing?
If just a simple overlay of the previous coaming, wouldn't the same holes be re used so as not to add any additional holes in the stringers and weaken them? And if that was the case, couldn't we compare the visible rivet spacing on the Miami photo(at least more visible in that photo than others) with the remaining 5/32" rivet row on 2-2-V-1?
I have questioned the 'hard landing' and whether it had any impact on what was done with the patch, but maybe my thoughts have been way off base.
Normally I'd expect to see a 'simple cover' (which I've personally taken 2-2-V-1 to be) re-use existing holes, yes; but there can easily be an argument for an altered / beefed-up structure where the rivet pitch (distance between fasteners) is reduced for strength (more rivets x inch, etc.). I cannot say 'it is the case', but can say 'it well could be the case'.
As to the hard landing, my tendency has been to take the simple view - and I recall something about simply covering the window to limit access to the interior of the plane more effectively. I still cannot lay my hands on what it was that gave me that notion, so I cannot show it true. Even if that had been recorded somewhere as to 'why the patch', it might mean nothing: this was Earhart, after all, to whom the public image was all - if Fred had some problem delaying things, the report might be 'delay due to personnel issues', so I've read; had she a hard landing (I believe the source on that) and any form of a structural issue or question arising from it requiring such a 'repair', she would not have been eager to advertise it. With NR1020 sitting in front of photographers with some shiny new metal on the side, what sounds better?
"We pranged it coming in and found some popped rivet heads and bending around the window and thought it would be good to beef it up before I drop it in somewhere else with a heavy load of fuel or something...", or -
"We didn't need the window, and it seemed good for security's sake to simply cover over it."
Now that I think about it, that's a lot of trouble to go to for security for a bird not everybody was likely allowed to walk up to... and no way Earhart was going to make the confession in the first statement above.
So, another mystery perhaps. I don't know about changing rivet pitch, but it wouldn't be a disqualifier to me at this point - just something to try to resolve, if that is what we have.