| No. Please do not make up or regurgitate baseless good-sounding bullshit to protect a bad actor. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-04/Second-A... As can be seen on page 16 of the order, outlining request format 1, each reporting entity is required to submit a initial incident report and a follow up updated report 10 days after receiving notice of the incident. This is registered in Column D, Report Type, as 10-day update. As can be plainly seen in Column D, Report Type, and Column B, Report Version, the vast majority of Tesla reports are on version 2, the second updated report issued 10 days after initial notice of the incident. Most of the remaining, newer, reports are on version 1, a report issued 5 days after notice of the incident as it has not yet been 10-days since the corresponding released NHTSA dataset. Also note that reporting entities are allowed to voluntarily issue subsequent reports marked as Report Type, Update. Tesla has intentionally chosen to not do any investigation to evaluate the operational or safety characteristics of their incomplete product in use. That is completely and utterly unacceptable for a safety-critical product. In addition, even if you were not colossally wrong on the nature of the reports, safety-critical systems require a positive proof of safety. You do not get to bet lives on unproven systems. If no proof is available, and no conclusions can be drawn, then it is not acceptable for use. This is the absolute basics of safety-critical system evaluation. The absence of information or inconclusive results is not a defense as you seem to think, it is a admission of guilt. In conclusion, you are completely wrong in both the particulars of report submission and the generalities of what conclusions can be drawn from the Tesla reporting methodology. |