Do what Linus Tech Tips has done (when they're doing it right): report that they got the device, tested it for a while, and it broke, so what they currently know about it is not the full picture, and that they might revisit the product when they have confirmed that they've worked out the kinks with the device in question.
That feels like exactly what the article did. They disclosed that the thing broke and on what time frame, alongside details about the degradation of functionality. As far as say that this isn't the full picture, is it definitely not? If we owe someone the benefit of the doubt if their device breaks while being reviewed do we owe the reader the deficit of the doubt if it doesn't break? What if they just got lucky?
Comments
Do what Linus Tech Tips has done (when they're doing it right): report that they got the device, tested it for a while, and it broke, so what they currently know about it is not the full picture, and that they might revisit the product when they have confirmed that they've worked out the kinks with the device in question.
Easy
That feels like exactly what the article did. They disclosed that the thing broke and on what time frame, alongside details about the degradation of functionality. As far as say that this isn't the full picture, is it definitely not? If we owe someone the benefit of the doubt if their device breaks while being reviewed do we owe the reader the deficit of the doubt if it doesn't break? What if they just got lucky?