Fundamental flaws? Or floors? The key fundamental flaw in the argument you are making, is that it doesn't progress the project to completion. Clearly if flaws are found and rectified by a competent team, as appears to now be the case, then it stands to reason the machine will absolutely work as intended. Much in the same way as A3's. big Lizzies or Black 5's. One other issue with your argument is this. You remained a donor whilst you didn't know of non-conformant engineering, but now that the truth and transparency are on offer, you step back? Its interesting that you take that position yet openly cite confidence of stakeholders. This engineer right here knows what constitutes the loss of my confidence, and that's non-conformant engineering being buried to please project managers. I can sympathise with the loss of money, that is regrettable and would be deeply unpalatable for any donor. In some aspects there may be recourse, but if not, we just have to make a choice to accept these things and keep going, or not, as the case may be.