Do they? Given that Tesla can make those logs say anything they want, I would like that code reviewed by a 3rd party.

If we're going to allow companies to write code in which human safety is in danger if that code misbehaves, that code should be auditable by a 3rd party, and those audits should regularly happen.

Code which affects the safety of humans should be reviewed with AT LEAST as much rigor as code for slot machines.

While Tesla could manipulate their logs, serious car crashes frequently result in lawsuits (in the US). The insurance industry and the surrounding specialties - liability attorneys, engineering consulting firms - would very quickly notice a pattern of "driver says 'FSD', Tesla says 'Not FSD'".

Why wouldn't every driver with no compunctions about lying^, knowing that tesla has autonomous features, say that "it was on, then it shut off with no time to react!" At some point you have to go off the logs, at which point the code, i agree, should be audited (sibling or a parent in this thread mentioned.) It's dueling disagreements otherwise.

^ reading anecdotes about accident scenes, someone if not everyone is always lying about what happened.

Tesla had to be "instructed" by the NHTSA to use this criteria.