Coming from Nader, He Who Always Lies, this is a very strong argument. He always does that. Manipulating PRs, leading to failure. There is not a single proper number he can disclose without corrupting it, by modifying the scope, definition or endpoint.
As proof I can show the many headlines/corrupted numbers he made that didnt mean what investors thought they meant back then, and were logically met with subsequent failure and disappointment. They have been already listed many times here.
The opposite argument - that is to believe the presence of the « modified » keyword there is not an issue and does not kill the « good » news - is weak in regard to this constant history.
It’s the Nader Constant Lie model, a very reliable one, followed by the Nader Constant Failure model.
He uses specific keywords like this « modified » one for a reason. To back up his lies the best he can against future class action lawsuits
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
