Those design changes from 2009-2011 happened before American AP1000 construction began in March 2013. The bankruptcy filing doesn't mention anything about the Chinese projects driving bankruptcy. It's due to problems at the American sites. Those problems occurred after construction began with finalized designs. If the design revisions that finished in 2011 mandated significantly higher complexity, higher costs, or longer schedules, then the cost/schedule estimates should have been updated before March 2013 and communicated to the utilities. Not modified reactively, repeatedly after the fact, as milestones kept getting missed.
All fair points; I basically agree with you. I probably went a little overboard in my reply to your comment. However, I think it would be fair to say that even though two years between re-design and construction commencement sounds like a lot of time, given the size and complexity of the project (and the time required to do a proper redesign and regulatory approval), much of their original planning and scheduling would have been thrown into disarray.
But your point is well taken; the obligation was on Westinghouse to communicate (probably in 2011) that delays were likely and to update their timing and cost estimates. In hindsight, staying quiet and hoping everything would somehow work out probably wasn't the best strategy...
