RMC:
Being one of those "conservative people"
I would still say that this news needs far more explanation then there is room in FI or anywhere else in public.
It can be open to discussion and there is no valid info out there (and it shouldn't be).
Rumors yes, but valid news no.
As for the personnel training I hope you were employed at both sides ( Airbus and Boeing or Northrop or Lockheed) in order to comment on their skills.
They all do make mistakes, more or less, the same way.
As for the stress and testing I am sure that public picture will be right in the end (as will the official EASA side as well). It is hard to explain all that in plain English to general public assuming that this is the FI's target audience.
Slight problem might occur if the whole thing was designed for a 0% margin (I've seen these type of requirements) although it is still avoidable with "conservatively" mentioned above.
I am happy to hear they can do the fatigue test in 18 mths - a very fast schedule comparing to others, at the same task.
As
tallsandwich I would also like to hear the crack propagation scenarios. This would tell us more how good this structure really is.