[krisoft]

> The title is saying we need to be careful because a tile was likely penetrated.

It is a godawfull title. I believe that is how it reads to you but it totally reads the opposite to me. I read the title and it translates in my head as “we reviewed the test results and they suggest that the tiles are built sturdy enough to not get penetrated”. Exactly because what you say the word “conservatism” means to me that a system is designed to meet the loads plus reasonable safety margin. So if the review of test data indicates conservatism that means to me that the test found the test object roboust even with a reasonable safety margin. Otherwise i wouldn’t say that it “indicates conservatism” but that it “indicates lack of safety margin”.

> The reason the slide is laid out the way it is, is because it's describing the thought process

I agree, but that is not a good thing. People think in all kind of haphazard ways, before you communicate to others it is on you to look at your ramblings and make it orderly. The penultimate sentence is the most important one that should go first “flight conditions is significantly outside of test database”. That doesn’t mean that the tile is broken, nor does it mean that it is not broken. It means that we can’t tell from our tests.

[SiempreViernes]

I read the title as saying "be careful when predicting tile penetration" based on one of the first point they make being that the method used to predict penetration "overpredicted penetration of tile coating significantly".

Though in fairness they then have sub points that kind of contradict this conclusion rather than support it.

But honestly this slide would make more sense if several of the sub points where top level independent statements instead.

[josefx]

> based on one of the first point they make being that the method used to predict penetration "overpredicted penetration of tile coating significantly".

That point read to me as if they completely overestimated the damage.