It is clear enough now; I missed that before.

I missed that as the thrust of your argument, because even if the information in that tweet was "material but not non-public due to previously approved disclosure", it would fall afoul of the "more than 2-days since approved" and "approved previously but now has edits" restrictions, which still leaves Musk in violation of the policy and therefore the court agreement.

(I also believe that the update of the range from "350k-500k" [previously public] to "around 500k" [in the tweet] to be a material update when given by the CEO of a company and that the SEC will argue that is also the case, but I agree/admit that there's some room for argument on that point.)

Thank you for the topic-centered discussion and I hope you experienced (as I did) this exchange as "disagreeing without being disagreeable".

> even if the information in that tweet was "material but not non-public due to previously approved disclosure", it would fall afoul of the "more than 2-days since approved" and "approved previously but now has edits" restriction

It's more that the information is "material but not non-public", end of sentence. He's not piggybacking on a previous approval of a post. He's piggybacking on the fact that it's public.

Even if the previous disclosure had been in a post by Musk, I'd argue those rules don't apply to a new post. Those rules are about how approval for a specific post can be revoked, by delaying too long or by editing. They only affect that specific post, not future uses of now-public information.

But the previous disclosure was not such a post. It bypassed the entire tweet approval process. So these secondary rules definitely do not apply.

> (I also believe that the update of the range from "350k-500k" [previously public] to "around 500k" [in the tweet] to be a material update when given by the CEO of a company and that the SEC will argue that is also the case, but I agree/admit that there's some room for argument on that point.)

That's an okay belief. I'm not saying the result is clear-cut, just that Musk has a reasonable argument.

> Thank you for the topic-centered discussion and I hope you experienced (as I did) this exchange as "disagreeing without being disagreeable".

Sure, I'd agree there.

> It's more that the information is "material but not non-public", end of sentence.

Even there, I think that's covered by "Written Communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to Tesla or its stockholders must, prior to posting or other publication, be submitted to Tesla’s General Counsel and Disclosure Counsel for pre‐approval."

That's the core of the argument.

Taking it literally might be the right interpretation. But it also fails to make sense in other ways. Is there an implied "not already public"? It's honestly hard to tell.