We have somewhat similar backgrounds.
Of course, I was talking about reported instances, and you are talking about affected installations. Quite different topics.
And reports of IT system problems are almost always easily reproducible, while the problem under discussion here is not so easily reproduced - particularly based on a few user reports that are short on details.
I know you understand that, if users experience a problem but nobody reports it, it doesn't get fixed. And that problem-investigation-and-fix resources get allocated based on the number and severity of reports.
What's your evaluation of the severity of this signal dropout issue? [Compared to solder joints connecting the battery terminals to the board in the same number of VP2 consoles.]
And did you significantly increase the number and details of signal-dropout support calls to Davis?
Yes, this is an interesting problem, and (perhaps) indicates that the VP2 system does not completely meet the advertised specifications under the entire range of conditions and combinations of accessories.
If you were hired as a consultant to Davis, what would you advise them to do?
Posing speculative questions like "What's your evaluation of the severity of this signal dropout issue?" or "how many VP2 systems do you suppose that Davis has manufactured?" only to cleverly attempt to falsify any answer (which is non-falsifiable by nature since the facts are clearly unknown or the answer can only be subjective) isn't helping to clarify matters.
And, no, IT support issues are not "almost always" reproducible any more than car troubles are almost always reproducible. There's a fair number that are all around vexing.
Let's simplify this. In the end, it doesn't matter how many users are aware or have reported it or even whether Davis is aware. If a product owner cannot operate their device normally according to the instructions and stated limitations in the manual without repeatable failures, the product is defective. Period.
I agree with your speculation about component tolerances and hardware/firmware at the limits, and would add individual siting factors, local RF environment, and peopleware.
Let's examine your list of possible confounding factors (reasons why the operator or environment could be at fault).
First up, the idea that there may be an unfavorable "RF environment". Not only has no evidence has been presented to support this contention, but, in fact, the available evidence goes the other way. We know that signal strength is acceptable even under the conditions in which failure is likely. Background noise has also been shown to be low. The Vue console's 0 resync count compared to an adjacent VP2's console's positive resync count is further evidence that the issue is not external.
You mentioned siting. Is placing an ISS 60' away from the console through normal residential wood-frame construction considered poor siting? This would seem especially dubious given the reception statistics mentioned above.
Up next we have "peopleware" (a vague, elastic term). This "peopleware" is active when the same person fires up their new Vue console and it operates normally under identical conditions causing failure in the VP2 console. Curious.
No reasonable or supportable alternative hypothesis has been forwarded to date as to why certain VP2 consoles fail in cold weather. We can speculate on the exact nature of the error(s) or exacerbating factors, but we have sufficient first-hand accounts, statistical data and expertise to conclude the responsibility primarily rests with the manufacturer.