I think it is because it’s not “the module is swapped for one that unlocks no matter what, and upon noticing the phone isn’t unlocking, the OWNER resets and sets up Face ID again”, but “the module is swapped for one that unlocks no matter what, and upon noticing the phone isn’t unlocking, the THIEF resets and lets the owner set up Face ID again”.
They’re also is the case of “Steal two phones, swap a few parts, reset the phones, and sell them second-hand”. Both phones will have 100% genuine parts.
> “the module is swapped for one that unlocks no matter what, and upon noticing the phone isn’t unlocking, the THIEF resets and lets the owner set up Face ID again”
The thief wouldn't have been able to reset Face ID, would they? Also it would make sense to warn a second time when you go to set up Face ID again.
If they reset the entire phone, uh, they could have handed you a different phone entirely. I don't see how part swapping is the problem here.
> They’re also is the case of “Steal two phones, swap a few parts, reset the phones, and sell them second-hand”. Both phones will have 100% genuine parts.
What role does the part swap have in this scenario? What stops me from simplifying it to "Steal two phones, reset the phones, and sell them second-hand."? Because if that simplification is valid, then this scenario has nothing to do with repairability.
They’re also is the case of “Steal two phones, swap a few parts, reset the phones, and sell them second-hand”. Both phones will have 100% genuine parts.