[krisoft]

Well, not sure what you mean by “totally worth the money”. Their report is quite damning:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/95kuvdv8zn1v/1mb55pLYkkXVn0nXxE...

Especially this quote from the ”Summary of Principal Findings and Conclusions”: “The reasons for Cruise’s failings in this instance are numerous: poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, lack of coordination, an “us versus them” mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of Cruise’s obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and the public. Cruise must take decisive steps to address these issues in order to restore trust and credibility.”

Not exactly a warm endorsement.

[juggertao]

Look at the main message: it wasn't malevolence, just incompetence and technical difficulties.

[krisoft]

That is the main message of the article, not the report.

[Beldin]

The unstated allegation is that they weren't hired for a warm endorsement, but to assuage the regulator and the public.

If that were true, you could expect certain things, such as casting blame towards folks who have left for company culture, or framing issues with informing the regulator as technical difficulties (eg, instead of deliberate malfeasance).

That the resulting report aligns with such expectations isn't proof - but it might raise an eyebrow here or there.