Your snark aside, "at least 39" doesn't indicate there are more than 39.

Also, the bit you quoted from page 104 is in reference to a list of the 17 tortured without authorization. So it also doesn't indicate there were more than 39 total

It starts with: This list does not include examples in which CIA inten-ogators were authorized to use the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, but then implemented the techniques in a manner that diverged from the authorization.

How can it be referring to the 17 where no authorization was sought, when it specifically states it is talking about authorized interrogations?

And in common meaning, if you say 'at least 39', you are giving a low-end estimate, not a known total.

The list starts on page 101 and is prefaced by this:

"The 17 detainees who were subjected to techniques without the approval of CIA Headquarters were: (...)", and then it lists them by name.

Then there's the part you're quoting, which is quite clearly stating that the list of 17 isn't counting cases where EIT was authorized, but the techniques were not implemented as authorized. This isn't surprising since the list of 17 is of people who weren't authorized for EIT at all.

If they were authorized, they're not listed as being unauthorized, even if the techniques used went beyond the authorization.

It's really very simple if you read the document. There's no question that section you quoted is referring to the list of 17.