YOUR RESEARCH996 - RMS Issue
1 matching discussions were examined; no attributable action/outcome evidence was detected. No consensus or repair conclusion is claimed.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Read captured repliesInsufficient extracted evidence does not mean there is no answer in the original discussions.
1 matching discussions · 2 captured posts examined · 0 partial discussions
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
2 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T144035Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I understand that the Club is carrying out a survey to assess the extent of the RMS problem, which effects 996/Boxster. I've received a questionnaire from the Boxster Register, but nothing yet from the 996 Register. Is the 996 Register participating in the survey? If not, I think that any conclusions would be incomplete.
Oliver My understanding is that the 996 members are not being surveyed. Not sure why as you rightly indicate both models are affected. Could it be that there are too many fingers in the pie and none on the hands of a cook[ ]
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
