My point is that there is no need to defend phrasing when the base premise supports the stricter interpretation. It was presented as a single drive because it was a single drive. If it was presented as a repeatable drive, that would be potentially* misleading. Presentation as a universal capability is right out.My point is that that's not what was being said when presented to folks.
*I say potentially because they had no disengagements in November, so it is unproven as to the reliability it would have had repeatedly driving that section.