Taking the liberty of copying the text from Chris Bergin - NSF @NASASpaceflight Sep 8, 2023 · 2:08 PM UTC:

Additional background on the release:

The FAA oversaw the SpaceX-led investigation to ensure the company complied with its FAA-approved mishap plan and other regulatory requirements.

The FAA was involved in every step of the mishap investigation and granted NASA and the National Transportation Safety Board official observer status.

The mishap investigation report contains proprietary data and U.S Export Control information and is not available for public release.

And Abhi Tripathi @SpaceAbhi, way emphasizing the “SpaceX-led investigation” part:

I’ve seen dozens of “Twitter experts” misunderstand this (often time by adding “Breaking…” to their post for extra clicks) so let me reiterate and further explain what Chris details below.

SpaceX LEADS the investigation. SpaceX issues the corrective actions. They pre-write a mishap investigation plan before they even launch. Then they execute their plan if they have an actual mishap. The FAA formally reviews the plan and also the investigation results and SpaceX-recommended corrective actions (but…informally they already know what’s coming because of close coordination). The FAA provides feedback, and could recommend adding something if warranted. Their main job is to verify and enforce that SpaceX does what SpaceX said it will do once they approve the final report. In reality, 90% or more of corrective actions may be finished before the report is even formally submitted. Just depends on how well the root cause(s) are understood and easy to fix.

The general public often believes the FAA writes all the corrective actions and has a large team of people conducting the investigation with a heavy hand (e.g. “the big bad government”). No way. I doubt that will ever be the case for any mishap or anomaly. That is simply not how the government is staffed.

The FAA (and their NASA colleagues who have the relevant technical expertise) are typically in super close contact with the SpaceX team through the head of SpaceX Flight Reliability (where the chief engineers reside).

The statements released by the government are usually kept vague but factual, often to the great dismay of social and traditional media (as well as “stans”) who want a juicy bite, ideally brimming with conflict. It is in a government agency’s best interest to maintain flexibility and work with who they are overseeing…while keeping the politicians and click-bait journalists and influencers away. Inflammatory statements could rally politicians to one side or the other, and then SpaceX and the FAA’s job could become charged and harder. Many people want to see that happen for many reasons.

If the final approval stalls, often times it is over a corrective action that was too open to interpretation. As an example of what I mean, if a corrective action is worded as such: “Redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness.” Ooh boy. So you want to break that down into discrete actions defining what “robustness” means.

If you want to learn more about the FAA’s role, read their website here: https://www.faa.gov/space/compliance_enforcement_mishap