Firstly it should be bourne in mind that this report is issued by a company accused by some of it's products damaging their equipment - it is not an unbiased & independant report.
I agree with you here. But I do not agree with the rest of what you wrote.
It appears to have fooled some into concluding that the fault lies within the flash head - that is in fact far from the case. What the report does is to report the symptoms of the failure, the components which fail and the way in which they fail. If I connected a television to 30000 volts I could do the same thing - look at the components which failed, and how they failed - some would conclude the failure was as a result of poor design of the television.
They did more than report the symptoms of failure. They outlined a fairly detailed set of circumstances and design flaws that could be the cause of failure.
And they did zap the flash with a 11-12kV (although not 30kV) to test for ESD issues, and there was no effect (page 16). Not sure what you're saying here.
There is no discussion about the potential differences in the E-TTL control of the PW when compared to Canons original (and undisclosed) software.
They did discuss the differences in HSS between PW and Canon, which is when most failures occur (page 14).
There is no specific mention of why these failures do no occur with other triggers such as the ST-E2 or even the hotshoe.
The information is there... the failures occur while using a PW and when not using PW, ie hotshoe (I'll find a quote if you want). The problem is pinpointed to arcing, partly due to ozone formation. So whether the flash is in a hotshoe or on a PW, the problem remains the same.
There is no attempt to ascertain the time of the arcing in the flash head - for all we know it could well be caused post failure of the IGBT when it dumps a full power load, and have nothing to do with the actual fail state, just another symptom.
You must have missed pages 7-8.
If ozone is a real problem (and I'm not convinced it is at these concentrations) then why is it not a problem when the flash is used with other triggers?
Arcing is the real problem. The arcing is caused by ozone lowering the dialectric strength of the air, and also by the position of the tube in relation to the backplane. The closer the tube is, the more likely the arc will happen. Note that the 430ex had the tube further from the back.
The report unfortunately doesn't reach a firm conclusion - just a note that further tests will be carried out.
It seemed fairly firm to me. Not unbiased truth, but an excellent argument.