1. Competence is judged in accordance with an acceptance criteria. You do not need to be able to show competent behavior to deem something incompetent. You are not competent to develop a fusion reactor. Nobody can do that, so we know you can not and are thus incompetent. You are not competent to develop a manned lunar space mission. It was done historically, but not now, so we know you can not and are thus incompetent. You are not competent to develop a rocket that can reach GEO. Others can do it, but we know you can not and are thus incompetent.
2. A competent DMS must only allow ADAS operation when it can positively identify a human driver looking at the road in a manner comparable to a attentive driver. Before you go on about some sort of inane tangent demanding I, a non-expert on gaze monitoring, define the exact parameters of what constitutes a "attentive driver" and then seek loopholes in whatever criteria I suggest to declare "victory" over safety, the acceptance criteria I just put forward explicitly does not absolve the manufacturer of any liability for deficiencies in their design whether known or unknown. The use of unproven technology in safety-critical contexts does not get a free pass. It must be deployed with the utmost care until an adequate analysis of its safety properties can be determined.
3. Although I can not speak to what, specifically, constitutes a successful implementation, I can speak to what is an immediate failure. In much the same way that I can not make a rocket that reaches LEO, but can determine that a rocket that explodes on the launchpad is not successful, I can determine what is a clear failure. Allowing the ADAS to operate while there is no human in the driver seat is an immediate, egregious failure. It is completely unacceptable on its face even if there were no known solution. Even worse, human face detection is an undergraduate computer vision project. Basically every phone and camera in the world has human face detection. If a human face is not detected for a certain amount of time then the ADAS should relinquish control. This may cause excessive disengagement if your human face detector is poor, but the reverse fails unsafe which is unacceptable. Literally anybody with even the minimum of safety design training would know that.
4. You demand that I solve Tesla's problem, that their hundreds of paid engineers can not solve, for free and then post it as open source. For some reason you do not demand Tesla, the manufacturer of the product and a nearly trillion dollar company, to release their source code for evaluation before it is allowed to endanger the lives of the public. For that matter, Tesla does not disclose their code even to the regulatory agencies, yet you demand a random member of the public to engage in a more thorough and transparent process than the company with billions of dollars who is attempting to deploy an incomplete safety critical product on the public roadways. The double standard is appalling.
5. It is not necessary to specifically identify individuals to declare malfeasance. I do not know who was in charge of Philip Morris when they deliberately obfuscated evidence linking smoking to lung cancer, but I know that they engaged in malfeasance.
6. The actions of Tesla demonstrate such a disregard for accepted practices in the development of safety-critical products and are such a gross deviation from the normal standard of care and occur with such regularity that it is improbable that the actions are mere criminal recklessness. Either they have no staff who are trained in safety design or they override them to ship product. Both are unacceptable.
They are developing a safety-critical product. Their management knows they require qualified safety experts. If they choose to retain no such individuals, then they have intentionally engaged in conduct that will lead to no safety oversight despite knowing that they should. If they have safety experts and override them, it is self-explanatory how that is unacceptable.
7. You demand I specifically name individuals while also declaring that your demand incurs legal consequences on me while accepting no increased burden yourself. Your attempts to raise the standard of proof exclusively on your opponents and then hurl baseless legal threats are anti-social debate tactics. How about you make a notarized statement under penalty of perjury that you know Tesla is following adequate safety procedures, and if they are not then you are intentionally lying to harm the public. If Tesla is following adequate safety procedures, then the second clause has no effect. If Tesla is not following adequate safety procedures, then you are trivially guilty of perjury.