To be precise, I said AECL wasn't satisfied. I suspect the CNSC wasn't satisfied either, but that's an assumption on my part. AECL themselves could clearly see from the tests that one of the factors they were assuming would be a cause of the problem has to do with the small amount of water around the outside of the core, between the fuel and the moderator. That was thought to have an effect on the way the reactivity was changing. A test was done with a slight design change that would have fixed the problem, and the problem stayed the same; it didn't have any effect. The point I was making was that AECL concluded that this particular factor was not causing the problem that they could see.
On June 10th, 2008. See this statement in context.