[taylodl]

The "right to repair" doesn't say anything about "ability to repair" or "easy to repair." What's at issue is people making modifications to firmware and then getting sued by the manufacturers. This is what's going on between John Deere and American Farmers, which was the original impetus of the "right to repair" movement. What "right to repair" is addressing is when you purchase a device then that device is yours - you can make any modification to it without fear of reprisal from the manufacturer. What "right to repair" does not mean is that you'll be able to repair your device, that it will be easy to repair, or that your warranty won't be voided if repairs are made by an unauthorized repairer.

[dagmx]

I think the biggest issue here is there's not a colloquially accepted understanding of what Right to Repair is.

What you're describing, and I agree with you, is what many legal right to repair advocates are fighting for.

However you'll see many people conflate it with easy to repair and easy to get parts, or repair without voiding warranty. Which IMHO should be separate talking points, but alas, they're all jumbled up when these discussions happen.

It's also why I don't think right to repair will please most people. Because the scenarios you described are limited and outside what most people are thinking e.g home repairs of cell phones