Absolutely lost, two refusals that make absolutely zero sense.

My girlfriend is trying to get a visitor visa to come and visit me in the UK for the first time and it has now been refused twice, with the reasoning completely bewildering me to say the least, I've never been so angry in my life.

The first application was refused with the claim that she does not possess enough money to come here, while in the previous sentence literally acknowledging that I am her sponsor paying for everything and that I have more than enough funds to support her entirely, make it make sense. A further problem with this also is they claimed that she spends almost 100% of her earnings every month, the major issue with this is that the reason her bank has almost 0 in it at the end of every month, is because anything she does not spend she moves to her savings account. We provided statements and hard evidence of both her regular account and savings account, which shows as clear as sunlight bouncing off a bald man's head that there is money movement between her regular account and savings account. The person that reviewed has essentially completely ignored the existence of the savings account, pretending it doesn't exist, and then dictating that because the regular account has no funds in it at the end of the month, that she just has literally "no money". Despite the fact that the reason there is no money in there is because it's in her goddamn savings account, which again we provided evidence of.

It has now been refused for the second time, and it makes even less sense than the first time which I didn't even think was possible. This time the claim is that she has "too much money". To combat what happened the first time, she has been refraining from moving any money from her regular account to her savings account so we can build up bank statements with funds in her regular account, so that whatever idiot reviews the application can't claim the money just doesn't exist even though it does. So we have provided several months of bank statements where she has not moved her remaining money to her savings, and they are claiming this time that the amount of money she has in her account should be impossible because she "doesn't earn enough" to have been able to build up that amount of money during the time of the bank statements. This is, for lack of a better word, unequivocally horsesh*t. Every single penny is declared and accounted for because bank statements have been provided covering that entire period of time, it is quite literally impossible for the figures to be incorrect because every single day of activity of her bank account is included in the evidence we gave this time from the very moment she stopped moving money away from her regular account. It's physically not possible for her to have more money than what's "possible" according to this genius that reviewed it, because she does not earn any extra money from any other source, and every single penny is tracked.

I am absolutely lost on what to do, because I can't see a single universe where these reasonings are at all rational in the first place, which just leads me to believe that regardless of what we do it's just going to get refused anyway. How can you win or get this accepted if refusal reasons are not based on actual truth or rationality? Does anyone have any advice on how to combat this? Because it just seems like straight up intentional deception and lying on the part of the people reviewing these.