Here’s my issue: there was still some bending of bolts and sill plate removal in Vilonia, and we’re not even delving into other EF5 candidates along the path that are missing. In addition, you say “needs to have” a continuous load path evidenced by anchor bolts being bent, versus that being typically preferable though not a requirement. That’s a big distinction, and if there’s recent literature or a presentation explicitly stating that evidence of a continuous load path with bent bolts are explicitly a universal requirement for EF5, then I’ll happily concede. But while LaDue said that bent bolts were a “key distinction” for the rating in Moore in his latest presentation, he did not say that explicit evidence of a continuous load path via bent bolts is a requirement for EF5 in general. Again, he even presented a potential scenario for EF5 involving a floor diaphragm in which anchor bolts aren’t in play at all. If you’re referencing the 2013 survey itself, then you have to at least know that individual surveys aren’t treated like tornadic case law, even though many would like that to be the case. The definition of where the bar should be unfortunately varies and changes depending on the year and who you are talking to.
Essentially, if that standard is explicitly a requirement for EF5 at every WFO, there has to be some direct evidence and recent official documentation that this standard not only exists, but is current and universal with no exceptions.
