It seems like the spec must be at least reasonably clear because after these mistakes are made, someone like Benson Leung can always point to it and the communi

It seems like the spec must be at least reasonably clear because after these mistakes are made, someone like Benson Leung can always point to it and the community has little trouble adjudicating that yes, the spec said this one thing, but someone did that other thing instead. Given this has happened time and time again, it seems like a process flaw more than a document flaw. Maybe well-meaning people just make mistakes. Or maybe people knowingly cut corners to save money (because saving on parts is a pressure that will never go away). Or something else. So some sort of process fix seems to be needed, one that will (1) reward those who succeed and/or (2) punish those who try to get away with violating the spec and/or (3) create tools (like test equipment or certification services or processes) to make compliance easier to achieve for those who are trying to. So, for example, could the Pi people have used some kind of device that would plug in and run through all the combinations? Or could there have been a canned list of test cases (representatives of different types of chargers, how they should behave) they should have run? Or could they have sent a prototype device off to USB Shouldn't Suck Labs to have them test it? Or email a schematic to them to have it reviewed by an engineer?