I don't think this reasoning is sound. For it to be a "skill issue" would mean that the ship was built correctly on both sides and the design itself is to blame for the fact that it steers badly enough that a highly skilled pilot is required to operate it up to specs. That does not make sense - this fact would have to be part of the plan from the beggining for such an explanation to be valid. If it was, then why test it with subpar pilots and expect it to perform as predicted (and they clearly do, otherwise ther'd be no big quarrel)?I agree but the point was that they were arguing whether it was the hardware or the software that was "wrong" because they couldn't get the performance to match the specs during testing, the answer is a combination of both, but any changes would change the specs which means that the problem currently was a skill issue with the pilot (to get the performance they were expecting, as demonstrated), though a rework of the hardware as well as software and better trained pilots would be better, as a well trained pilot with good instincts will always get the most out of any ship (all vehicles have some shortcomings that can be alleviated by a good pilot/driver/captain etc, no vehicle ever has been perfect).
The reality of it IMO is that someone indeed screwed up and that is the result. Sure, technically it could have been both sides, but that is unlikely - if both hardware and software dropped the ball then you'd expect a multitude of different issues, not a single specific one.