That cuts both ways. Pointing out uncertainty doesn’t by itself invalidate the direction of the argument.
My point was about incentives and scope: the exemption looks broad enough that most major OEMs can comply without going to removable batteries, especially at the high end where cycle-life claims are already trending toward the threshold. If that holds, the regulation mostly adds compliance cost while only forcing changes on a narrower slice of lower-end devices.
If you think that’s wrong, the useful counter is data: what share of shipped units in the EU would actually fail the exemption and be forced into redesign? Without that, saying the conclusion is “unsustained” isn’t doing much more than asserting the opposite.
You’ve concluded because you don’t have the data nobody has the data and thus the legislation “is a waste of money.”
Your ask for data is warranted. Your premature conclusion is inaccurate, or at least unsustained.