You clearly seem to think it's OK to sell a machine based on best-case figures, when it's clearly the worst-case figures which are actually the ones that matter.
If you sell me a vehicle on the basis that it can cover 85 miles between charges, and I find myself sitting by the side of the road with a flat battery after 75, then you owe me the cost of recovery plus the cost of my time which you've wasted, as well as a new battery pack. *Any* product should be able to meet its manufacturer's claims, provided those claims are honest and reflect the true capabilities of the product. If it doesn't, the manufacturer is guilty of at best incompetence, and at worst, fraudulent misrepresentation.
I can't say I'm surprised, though. Marketing types do it all the time, selling the alleged benefits of their products with the ubiquitous "up to" qualifier. They hate it when you point out that "up to" means "less than".
A vehicle with a guaranteed minimum range of 85 miles would meet my needs. A vehicle with a range of "up to" 85 miles probably won't. All I'm asking for is honest, accurate information about what the vehicle can actually achieve - specifically, at what remaining capacity will the batteries be deemed EoL and replaced under warranty.
By the way, I completely agree that I would be an idiot to buy an EV, at least until the technology has matured. That's why I drive a car with a conventional diesel engine and a tank range of about 500 miles.