As with everything so far brought to the fore, Facts presented (such as they may be) could have two very different interpretations. I could see a decision to place all the Covenanter's sent to North Africa into a repair training facility due to their small numbers. Or it could be that in a image (granted a small slice of area) one quarter of all vehicles present are of the very few units ever sent there, are there because their breakdown rate exceeds others visible in the image. If the "official" written record of the Covenanter is that it was substandard design that bordered upon being a scandal for its production run, then in my humble opinion the burden is upon those who claim it is unfairly maligned to offer conclusive proof to the contrary. So far we only have scattered anecdotal stories, some of it clearly in error, that it wasn't all that bad compared to other types of the period or some inconclusive accounts of very limited combat use, none of which is terribly convincing. Clearly no one in a position of authority was prepared to send this tank into battle. Granted they may have been fools, or idiots, or even corrupt, but the more likely and reasonable explanation is that they being far closer to the situation than we ever could hope to be, concluded that to do so would have been a grave disservice to the British serviceman. Sometimes a cigar, is only a cigar.