f I've got this straight, in previous discussions of DriveDx and its ilk you've mentioned that they monitor only those aspects of a drive as are specified by the manufacturer, so, is it possible that kevs's particular problem would not have been detected in a different brand of drive? And in a different vein, is it even possible for DriveDx to detect a problem that isn't specific to the drive itself, as opposed to the other possibilities you've mentioned?
DriveDX
etc. can only monitor the S.M.A.R.T. attributes reported by the drive.
<snip>
While those S.M.A.R.T. or NVMe attributes generally accepted as indicators of drive health and longevity are reported by virtually all drives, it is within the realm of possibility for one drive to report a condition to be analyzed by DriveDX that isn't reported by another drive (even a drive from the same manufacturer, but a different design team). What is more likely to effect the results is not what attributes are reported, but pass/fail limits of that value imposed by the designers and is generally conceded to be the greatest weakness of the S.M.A.R.T. concept. So, what may be a failing attribute score on one drive, could be passing on another, although DriveDX appears to compensate for this to an extent, by permitting the user to set their own reporting levels. Whether there is a possibility of a condition arising from factors external to the drive mechanism itself depends on the particular attribute.
