Good enough that I just updated the article to mention it. However, the email sent to prospective investors specifically says In stock by July which is still questionable. Either that's wrong, or the claim of a 52-week lead time is wrong, or a 52-week lead time qualifies as "In Stock." Even if that is addressed in that blog post.
> I’m starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but hitting shipping parity will depend on the E5 production run going according to plan, and our not hitting any more supply chain snags along the way. Because of this uncertainty, I have not yet updated our 52-week lead time on new Librem 5 orders, and will likely not update it until the E5 production run is complete and waiting for its turn to ship to customers. [...]
So, they are keeping the 52-week out of "uncertainty". Which is fine, by all means. However, they are quoting 8 weeks to investors without mentioning the uncertainty. Which is legally worse? Misleading customers, or misleading investors, if that uncertainty materializes? Especially on a sale that does not appear to meet other legal checkboxes like investor status verification?
