This headline kind of misses the point. The NTSB is very explicitly structured to not be a regulator to enhance cooperation between all parties, which is part of the reason that confidentiality is so important.
I read the statement, and I'm not exactly sure where the problem is. Boeing as a company was responding to the media and placate consumers, and investors.
The NTSB process of determining actual fault is completely separate. The process itself is designed to not fault one person or company, but to simply figure out what happened so that it won't happen again. That's a completely separate process from what the company is doing, and it's not dependent upon or relying on the company in any way.
> But an executive at the company “provided investigative information and gave an analysis of factual information previously released”, the NTSB said. Both actions are banned under Boeing’s agreement with the agency, signed at the start of the Alaska investigation.
> The NTSB said Boeing had painted the agency’s investigation “as a search to locate the individual responsible for the door plug work” during the briefing. This is not the case, it clarified: “The NTSB is instead focused on the probable cause of the accident, not placing blame on any individual or assessing liability.
Then I guess you're being willfully ignorant. I'm not sure what's unclear about this?
Boeing isn't allowed, per a signed and legally binding agreement, not to share any information from the investigation. They also aren't allowed to speculate on causes. They did both of these things. The things you state as arguments are irrelevant.
