Thanks for that I/C, that does verify her correction in the AWST post-comments. The original claim that it was a 'CV-22' and not an 'MV-22' that gave significance to the article appears to have been withdrawn. Will advise if any corrections to that are heard.
There are another couple of minor errors she made that are not yet corrected in post comments. The reporter was correct that 'the Navy never cancelled its order,' but quotes that are 'not quite there' are when she says they have on order, "potentially, around 50 for the Navy," and "53 CV-22s for U.S. forces." It is actually 48 for the Navy and 50 for the USAF (SOCOM).