You can have many internal iterations and release new versions to production very rarely.

Something that emits sparks should not be in the field. It should be recalled/replaced with a safe piece of hardware.

Feel free to amend 'emits sparks' to read 'has hardware bug X'.

Wrong. There are hardware bugs that do not manifest as physical safety risks.

Physical safety risks are an exceptional class of defects that in most jurisdictions has a legal requirement for the vendor to fix or replace the defective part(s) at their own cost (not to be borne by consumer).

Point: SPECTRE/MELTDOWN were not "physical safety risks". Yes you can argue they are security risks, but they didn't physically manifest as a physical safety risk which can lead to severe injury or loss of life.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I said amend it to make it a hardware fault of your choice, or make those sparks a bit of static.

My point was that a physical safety risk is a special kind of "hardware bug". It is not just another hardware bug, of a different flavor.

Your commentary seemed to suggest you were not attaching an appropriate level of mental priority with regards to the severity and risk.