I'm still working through the report, but your TLDR seems wrong. The report seems to be repeatedly emphasizing that the grid is supposed to be resilient to unp

I'm still working through the report, but your TLDR seems wrong. The report seems to be repeatedly emphasizing that the grid is supposed to be resilient to unpredictable failures at unpredictable times. While the trees were the immediate cause [0], the real story of the outage was the resulting cascade failure, which absolutly should not have happened. To take a CS example, when Google/Amazon/etc suffer a cascade failure, they do not blame the proximal cause (such as a few nodes getting overloaded), but rather their load balances and failure recovery systems for allowing/causing the problem to cascade into a full network failure. [0] And a result of inproper vegetation management