UPDATE--PR's continued problem with the F-35 or resume hype?

Testing will show various problems as it should. And the F-35 should be no different. Correct?

Well, it was stated some years ago by the program over-optimists that testing was there just to verify what they already knew.

Yes, well, if that is so, what they know is how bad the aircraft's design really is.

Of interest we have this PR message brought into question by an employee's resume.

Back in 2011, AF-4 had a in-flight failure that grounded F-35s for a while.

Also mentioned here. Look at the use of language.

Then, problem solved a few weeks later:

After weeks of being grounded the three late model F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter test jets have been cleared to fly. The jets’ return to flight comes after program officials tweaked maintenance procedures which had led to the failure of two generators and an oil leak during a test flight of an F-35A on March 9.

It was all just a maintenance procedure that needed altering and well, the backup system helped save the pilot and aircraft.

Fair enough.

From the same source; this:

The problem only impacts F-35s built relatively recently.

So a maintenance process altered to help out with a previous production lot.

A different explanation is offered by this online resume.

Participated via the control room in successfully recovering aircraft AF-4 during an unforeseen dual main generator failure event. Ensured the F-35 reconfigured properly, utilizing the PTMS system correctly to provide emergency backup power. Unveiled two critical design flaws and addressed both issues post recovery, all of which resulted in a SPOT award from management

Emphasis added.

So either the person is just resume-enhancing or... two critical design flaws were "unveiled".

Stating discovery of new, "critical", design flaws is different than a maintenance process fix for an older production lot design issue.

--UPDATE--

Here-- which is about the systems involved.

Here-- also no mention of "critical design flaws".