Yep. I read it.
"The state was obligated by law to perform a 'risk-limiting audit'—a means of determining accuracy by counting a random sample chosen according to mathematical formulas."
Read that? OBLIGATED BY LAW. They can't just choose to do something else. They had to do it.
They agreed to do it:
"They did, however, agree to carry out a version of risk-limiting audits, with the guidance of a nonprofit organization called Voting Works."
Some confusion on exactly what they did:
“This whole thing was originally called a risk-limiting audit, then a hand recount, then an audit—I don’t know what it is; I don’t think anyone else knows”
Even if they did a different kind of recount, it wouldn't affect the election's results for legal reasons. The law says it has to be a risk-limiting audit:
"By Tuesday, the state appeared to have done a legal analysis of its effort; Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system manager, announced that the hand count would not in any way change the election’s results, for legal reasons."