Well, the information requested, if you read the actual definitions, uses a lot of "any" and "all", so if you take that literally it's not exactly an elevator pitch style description they are asking for.

"Describe in detail the features of the comma one"

and

"Provide a detailed description of the conditions under which you believe a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely ... [and] a detailed description of the basis for your response to [the previous question] including a description of any testing or analysis..."

and

"Describe in detail any steps you have taken to ensure that the installation of the comma one ... does not have unintended consequences..."

I'm not saying the request is unreasonable, but to say that "the information requested is not that great" isn't really true. To completely answer those questions would take a lot of effort. (Assuming of course that he's done such testing. His canceling the product rather than respond makes you think he realized his answers would not be credible...)

How much is "a lot"? This seems like a couple of engineer-days if it gets down into the dirty details, which isn't huge.

Ironically, if he hasn't done any such testing, the answers would be much easier to generate. "We haven't done any." Not that the NHTSA would take it well....

I could imagine taking a week to do it, and he has 11 days.

I've been involved in writing similar descriptions to provide to NASA, and when you get down to exactly how each module works and need to enumerate every branch, it ends up being a lot of work.

He would have had 11 days to produce something. If he'd wanted to play ball, he could have produced something in the way of a response, then waited for a response to that requesting clarification, then provided more information, etc. I've dealt with similar agencies and often as long as you are being cooperative, the "clock" is fairly easy to reset.

It would appear that he didn't have any interest in cooperating at all, though. Which inevitably leads me to wonder if it's not more of a face-saving maneuver; better to blame failure on the pesky regulators than admit your technology isn't up to the investor pitches you might have made.

I would have assumed that anyone serious about releasing this type of product would have made contact with the relevant government departments and worked with them along the way to ensure they meet the requirements.

Also, the documentation being asked for is something the company should be able to put together fairly easily because they ought to have asked and answered these questions along the way to building the product.

Yeah, determining the requirements of a product you are attempting to produce ought not to be left to the end of design.

Requirements for a product? Sounds too much like a waterfall.

Have you ever considered establishing product direction through use cases branded as "stories" and pulling them out of your ass every two weeks?

/s

These people are too far down the rabbit hole to "get" it :p