To Jauerback if one has a difference about an edit that edit can be reverted Thats what I did since the PIB report is an incorrect report Its invalid Each and every edit or revert need to be measured in on its merit of being valid or not Until By can prove that the PIB report is correct I will not revert to my version or his version but with the standard version that existed before this issue cropped up Be fair  To By if your Ford car requires parts change after  km run you cannot complain to them that their product failed The specification says  km and only thing that everyone using that car is supposed to replace the parts after the specified kilometers   The PIB report was submitted to the parliamentary committee which found the report incorrect If you want your version you must have to prove that the PIB version is correct  I am again submitting what the Committee has to say about the PIB report on which you are arguing From the article  the standing committee to which the report was submitted says There were clear factual inaccuracies in the armys deposition before the Standing Committee The most glaring of them is the armys suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjuns performance  In fact the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service based upon its driving and firing performance over the years After firing trials in summer  the trial report written by the army said The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt  The ongoing trials in Pokhran that the army is citing are Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials AUCRT In these two Arjun tanks were run almost nonstop for  kilometres not to judge performance but to evaluate the tanks requirement of spare parts fuel and lubricants during its entire service life