"What she's saying is that she believes that he engaged in insurrection, but that her belief is not sufficient to keep him off the ballot. And she's right."
Where did she say this? From the court order:
"The Court further concludes that the events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of insurrection."
That's not the judge's personal opinion, that's the finding of the court. Further, the order explicitly says that Trump would not have to be convicted in order to be kept off the ballot:
"The Court does note that at no point in this proceeding has Trump (or any other party) argued that some type of appropriate criminal conviction is a necessary precondition to disqualification under Section Three. There is nothing in the text of Section Three suggesting that such is required, and the Court has found no case law or historical source suggesting that a conviction is a required element of disqualification."
The idea that a criminal conviction is necessary is so much without legal basis that even Trump's lawyers didn't try to argue that. The only reason that the judge didn't bar Trump from the ballot is that she doesn't believe that Section 3 of the fourteenth amendment applies to the presidency. The order is fairly clear that she does feel that there is sufficient evidence that he engaged in insurrection in order to keep him off the ballot, but only if he were running for a different office.