Most companies publish incidents reluctantly. Koblie publishes them because silence creates a worse operating environment.
Once a company has spent years in stealth, every failure that becomes visible without context risks being absorbed into old outside frames. Governments may read it as a control problem. Industry may read it as proof that the work was never real. Competitors and skeptics may fill the gap with whatever narrative best suits them. In that setting, withholding incidents does not preserve authority. It surrenders it.
Public incident reporting does something more useful. It demonstrates system maturity, reveals how the company thinks under stress, and turns operational difficulty into part of the visible proof surface. An incident handled openly can show queue discipline, safety logic, rerouting competence, and repair depth more clearly than a polished milestone announcement ever could.
There is also an internal effect. Teams that know incidents may become public tend to develop stronger explanatory discipline. They log more carefully, distinguish clearly between failure and degradation, and build with the expectation that the company’s competence must remain legible under scrutiny.
Koblie publishes incidents in public because trust is cheaper to build through operating clarity than through image management alone.