This gets down to the basic fact that there was not enough time allotted to testing at all stages. I have part of a patent on an actual physical device. Chemical and biological non-living molecules can be considered devices for our discussions. All of the testing ends with the testing of whether something can be reproduced consistently. With molecules and even physical devices very large production runs over varying periods of time exist merely to test manufacturing consistency with the product never being considered for end-use, tested extensively and ultimately discarded. These are not dry runs. These are actual wet products with full production staff under normal working conditions.

I don't care whether it is a new car model, electric razor (or disposable for that matter) or paint or molecule. One finds problems that could not be modeled in any simulation that are only revealed once actual production starts.

Then the sample production runs are tested to validate what the original testing on volunteer and animal subjects produced.

Guaranteed that some asshole chemists and biologists sat at their computers and did some molecule modeling and simulations, created a few quick and dirty batches and then spun up medium production runs repurposing existing facilities and equipment. Even if the latter two were to be done, extensive testing for appropriateness was not done.

This is all due to the process being violated at many steps from the beginning. No amount of money or personnel no matter how competent could have performed this in such a short period of time. The hard limit cannot be hacked by concurrent efforts. It is only a sequential process.

Sounds like a lot of the BS that we are subjected to in the computer world which also found its way into cars lately. Release some concurrently but not sequentially product development crap and then pull back or re engineer or re code problems during the production runs and during end use. Not a good way. A proper product is essentially locked for the production cycle.

We decided to shortcut the shortcuts.

The test of any good manufacturer of anything is how consistent and reliable the products are over time.

Guaranteed that they are modifying this shit on the fly which will frustrate any efforts to document what was problematic. Guaranteed that not necessarily for malice or subterfuge records of the changes are not being kept.

A lot of seat-of-the-pants decisions are being made here. This is what the data and Karl's excellent analysis says to me.

----------

YCNU.