Can you explain? So by not "actually being forced" do you mean they found the issue themselves and brought it to Nitsa, or that they aren't making the change even though it would be easily done by an OTA update?
In terms of inconsequential non-compliance, that's a risk-based approach. And that's the correct approach IMO. The difference is that risk-based decisions should ideally be made before manufacturing because it shows you understood the requirement and risk before making the design decision. An "easy fix" after the fact isn't a good explanation for not understanding the requirements in the first place. I agree this should also apply to other manufacturers, but the video is 1) looking at other cars nearly a decade old and 2) using a digital cluster and not a touchscreen. From that standpoint, it muddles the comparison just to pat Tesla on the back. It's like comparing a 1980s carburetor non-compliance to a modern EFI that can be fixed with reprogrammed fuel mapping; the principle is there, but it just makes for a bad analogy.
Also: don't spam the thread with the same comment. You left this same copy/paste at least 7x. At best, it waters down the conversation and at worst, it comes across as shilling for Tesla and sets your otherwise decent point as fodder for shallow dismissal