True, there are better ways to word it. That does leave out some detail that the original one had, like test velocity and not showing the thought process as well (like a formula on a math slide or deductive argument in philosophy).

My main point is that the title claims thus slide is what killed 7 people and basically blames the creator, but leaves out all the other failures. Slide formatting and wording (which ignores the actual discussion that should have gone with it) is really inconsequential compared to the rest of the process in a briefing.

The slide being such a mess, makes me think that the speaker's arguments may not point to the danger so clearly either. This makes me look favorably on the title even though it is hyperbole.

Granted this is pure speculation on my part and should be treated accordingly.

Hell, it's even probably fair to make an editorial conclusion at the end -

"Given this, we strongly recommend against launch"

The damage happened during launch. Unless you're talking about how the insulation was old and NASA knew that insulation can, and had in the past, struck shuttles.