That part I am not understanding after reading all this (and my sincerest apologies if I missed it) is why the sudden revision to the Corsa page, which seems to broaden the RSC definition to a much larger scope?

If the allegations are true that relations between APR and Corsa are no more as a result of unpaid bills (which members of the forum have alledged), and if the allegations of APR cutting open Corsa units to copy their R&D are true (which was one of the explanations given by members here for why these photos exist, again, alledged), then why would Corsa alter their RSC Technology description to broaden its definition which would in no clear way benefit them? And seemingly only serve to benefit APR?

It would seem Corsa would be upset if someone was using their trademark name to push a product that wasn't it, which potentially risks their Brand's Image, and their investment in creating that brand.

If someone owed you money, you quit talking as a result, then they came asking you to alter and potentially risk your Brand Name's Equity by allowing it to encompass a broader definition to aid in their troubles, what reasoning would there be to oblige?

It would loosely be like Shell buying regular gas from Chevron, then selling it as "Premium with Techron". Then people finding out its just regular gas and getting mad, and Shell running to Chevron asking "please say that the Techron definition can really be applied to anything that is combustible, even though that undermines its implied value you have invested years into creating" Why would Chevron do that?

Perhaps the Corsa page change is pure coincidence, I am just trying to understand why Corsa would suddenly (seemingly) broaden the definition, or how it would benefit them to do so?