I was going to write something similar. Just because it is unpleasant doesn't make it untrue.
Either way, if the *starting* point is Samsung's process, it paints a picture that is more advantageous to Samsung than others. That's the marketing collatoral Samsung wants, it doesn't need to just be rubber stamped.
Samsung competition is going to want to privately do improvements or collaborate without samsung, but privately, at least until the public forgets about the Note 7 Fiasco. They are not going to squander their relatively good image by giving the impression their house is not in order.
If anything, expect competition marketing push about how they have *always* been good and careful about battery testing, whether it's disingenuous or not.
No, don't *publicly* learn anything from the mistakes of others.
Maybe Samsung was more lax, or maybe they were just more lucky. Either way, their competition isn't going to do anything *publicly* to demonstrate a hint that it was luck rather than quality.
If competitor processes were lacking, but lucky, you can be certain they did (quietly) learn and improve.
Or alternatively "boy our process was garbage and we were lucky, but it is good now"
even if they were 'just' lucky, they'd never admit to it.
Is Samsung. They are talking *loud* about something they purport to be a super better thing. It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.
So the competitors going along with it and making it look like Samsung is *leading* in battery safety would just play into Samsung's hands.
In terms of the actual relative merit, who knows, but from a perspective of marketable storytelling, it is very much not in the interest of Samsung's competitors to play up Samsung's process. If there is merit that their competitors are told about and recognize, expect them to silently improve their process, but in no way publicize that fact.
The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst