I'm not sure that I follow, Ed.
Manufacturers use a system of accounting that values raw materials, work in progress and finished goods at the end of a period that is based on "normal" costs. I don't want to get too far into this issue...it's boring....but the idea is to determine the value of the inventory at the end of the period by taking all of the costs that go into creating the inventory, subtracting the existing value of the inventory at the end of the period and charging the difference to Costs of Sales. So there's an asset value called inventory at the end of the period and there's an expense called Cost of Sales during the period.
The process of cost accounting, which attempts to assign all of the costs of production (materials, labor and overhead) to the units produced, can be complicated. Some costs normally vary from period to period (production facility utility charges, for example) and then there are the issues such as the one that you raised, where the depreciation of a tool, which was fixed one minute, needs to be adjusted the next based on the need to replace or repair the tool. In the latter case it may make sense to charge the repair cost directly to cost of sales rather than to include it in a revised unit cost and thereby give the repair cost a value in the inventory asset at the end of the period. (This MAY address your questions.)
But I think it may be a mistake to try and understand the DECN "loss on obsolescence" as if there is any relevance to the above. I'm under the impression that DECN simply discovered that a certain piece, a large piece, of their inventory was no longer saleable through their normal channels at normal prices. They "wrote it down" in anticipation of having to sell it at reduced prices. Since inventory is generally supposed to be valued and reported at the lower of cost or market, strips that cost the company $3/50 to build (for example) can't be valued at that cost if they can't be sold for AT LEAST that cost. If it is anticipated that they will have to be sold for less then $3/50 they are supposed to recognize that depressed value. That seems to be what happened here.
So rather than this loss being attributable to a manufacturing issue, it is actually due to a marketability issue.
That said, the question raised previously remains:
Exactly how and why did the company build inventory in Q2 that it also wrote down in the same quarter. I don't want to go back and quote the filings again, but they raised the name of Shasta and I have no idea how that company can play into this issue. I'm pretty sure that Shasta didn't contribute to the inventory that was built and then written down, according to the DECN balance sheet, in the 2nd quarter.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
