I assume your comment is hyperbole. The lack of a technical defect means that the machine did not malfunction in order to undertake the movement that ended up with the man pinned against the safety cage.
It does not reflect intent at all.
The next question is whether the robot was under autonomous control, or if there was an outside control applied (such as a human manipulating the robot). Right after that is whether the technician bypassed any of the safety protocols that are designed to prevent accidents like these.
of course...but I hope that wasn’t their opening statement to the family when expressing their condolences.
As you point out, saying the robot operated as designed doesn’t get to the bottom of it. There are external inputs to the robot function. Mode (auto, teach, manual); permissives (barriers, pressure mats, light curtains, scanners), and design intent for that entire system, including needs for teach and troubleshoot. The robot manufacturer is off the hook, but whoever designed the box that has the robot in it, they are going to be in the hot seat.