No, you're right in that the legalese comes after the engineers put the slides together, but it doesn't make the contents of the slide any less confusing. The fact that the lawyers had to come in and add their clarifying fine print means that they thought someone might misinterpret the slides, which is a very valid concern. I mean, even Ian Cutress misinterpreted the slide on first viewing, and I know that he is a knowledgeable fellow who understands that HVM comes much later after the node is viable. It doesn't help that the slide that got distributed to the press is the version without the legalese either.
At the end of the day, I think that bashing on the messaging is valid because publicly traded companies need to be careful about what they say and how they say it. Bad messaging about their node developments, or lack thereof, is what got Intel into their predicament in the first place and they should rebuild trust with investors. Roadmaps, in the general sense, are made to convey to others what is the long-term plan, so in a way they are made to appease shareholders by telling them, "Look! We're on track for these dates!" In Intel's case, their track record as of late has been hit or miss, and they cannot afford to miss moving forward. Whether or not the slide was made to intentionally mislead, they could have done a better job at being clear.
View attachment 72356