The article talks about the Soloviev & Go catalogue how it wasn't taken into account: "Presumably on the basis of these studies, [Soloviev & Go] assigned it a t

The article talks about the Soloviev & Go catalogue how it wasn't taken into account: "Presumably on the basis of these studies, [Soloviev & Go] assigned it a tsunami intensity I=4, which is one of their highest values for Japan tsunamis. Yet, in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, it has been argued repeatedly that the Jōgan tsunami had not been documented until 2001 [17], well after the design of the NPP" Also, the 2007 journal paper that found insufficient protections at Fukushima: "The senior author of [46] was then a TEPCO scientist, while another two co-authors are two of the most senior tsunami engineers in Japan. We wonder how disappointed they must have been on 26 November 2010, when, in the symposium organized by JNES, they found out that TEPCO did not appear to have heeded their recommendations [46] in its re-assessment of Fukushima Dai-ichi" I haven't read the whole report, these are just 2 that I picked up.