"After many attempts to have the issue corrected, their evaluation was that it still was a flawed piece of equipment.  Pinpoint was viewed as a solution to the problem --- a solid instrument with no history of failure."

Based on recent reports posted here on the LML it does indeed sound like the Pinpoint GADAHRS is working well.  I see no reason to doubt those who have flown it and stated that it lives up to their expectations.  Likewise I see no reason to doubt those who are flying with Crossbow 42x AHRS and also have reported that it is performing as it should.  This is all good news.  That said, the accuracy of the last part of the above statement bothers me a bit. At the time D2 announced switching to the Pinpoint it had no history of failure because, as far as I can tell, it simply had no history.  It was many months after the announcement before I heard of one flying in a customer's airplane.  D2 may have had the best of intentions in making the switch but I think they were overly optimistic as to how quickly Pinpoints could be delivered.  After more years than I care to admit developing electronic products, primarily for the computer industry, I've found that missed schedules are all too common.  Of course, being an engineer I always blame it on marketing for setting unrealistic schedules and then combining that with feature creep :-)  Marketing then blames it on engineering for being unable to accurately forecast unforseen problems.  And so it goes...

Tom Gourley