I don't think he mis-spoke! Towards the end of the clip Stone says that rule 6490 is used to declare certain corporate action submissions deficient, and not process them, if we believe they are related to fraud, OR WOULD OTHERWISE THREATEN THE CLEARANCE AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEM. FINRA ignored their suspicion of fraud (image 1), they overstepped their role, authoring the MMTLP Corporate Action, then revising the Corporate Action after speaking to the DTCC/NSCC (AKA The Clearance and Settlement System). The outcome is that FINRA claimed they protected hypothetical investors that "might've" been able to open New Positions in MMTLP after 12/8, which would've been an issue relating to settlement and clearance that FINRA wants us to believe they didn't discover until after the 12/8 trading day, after two MMTLP Corporate Actions were published. But both MMTLP Corporate Actions informed the Corporate Actions Department of EVERY brokerage that purchases after 12/8 would not be entitled to the Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Distribution, and FINRA's Rule 11893 allows them to nullify any transactions from brokerages that didn't understand plain English. So FINRA chose to permanently harm the actual investors in order to protect hypothetical investors that still had an extra layer of protection. Going back to what Chris Stone said about protecting the clearance and settlement system from threats... If the MMTLP Corporate Action submission was just deemed deficient and not processed, the threat to the clearance and settlement system would not have gone away. By processing the MMTLP Corporate Action, but hijacking it to instead be centered around FINRA's deletion of the trading symbol effective December 13th (40 hours before the actual EXCHANGE), FINRA was able to eliminate the threat, U3 halting trading before the December 9th trading day, removing the ability for forced liquidations and Position Close Only transactions to take place on December 9th and December 12th. It's either this, or you truly believe that FINRA neglected to recognize an issue with the timing and structure of the Corporate Action that FINRA itself created twice, the final revision occurring directly after speaking with the DTCC/NSCC without the issuer being present or consulted.