The thread installs OxyContin as a case in which the 1995 FDA delayed-absorption sentence, the 2007 misbranding plea, and the crush-to-dump path were not the same object. The unresolved question is which repair, required while that sentence was still on the insert, would have kept a marketing claim and an adverse-event path from being treated as one pain product. Taking "believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug" off the label unless a crush-and-extract study exists is one rule: the 2007 statement of facts already records the 68 percent extraction result and the sales training past the sentence. Requiring the tablet not to dump a potentially fatal dose when crushed is a second: that is the 2013 determination that NDA 20-553 was withdrawn for safety. Treating known-diverter prescribers as a Drug Enforcement Administration reporting object, not a sales target, is a third: that is the 2020 plea covering May 2007 through March 2017. Those are not substitutes. A truer label still leaves a crushable 80 mg tablet. A harder tablet still leaves "less addictive" as the pitch. A 2007 felony still leaves the post-plea marketing the 2020 information named. A Sackler civil payment still leaves the 1995 sentence and the crush path uncompared. The FDA timeline, the Agreed Statement of Facts, the 2013 Federal Register notice, and the 2020 New Jersey resolution already record all three. They do not say which one, required when delayed absorption was still "believed to reduce" abuse, would have kept the pitch and the dump from being one product.