The thing is, "incorrect" implies the existence of a static "correct". Which I interpret as a static spec which a microcode bug violated and could be fixed back to that static spec with a simple microcode update.

I do find your suggested scenario to be very plausible. That Intel have discovered their original voltage algorithm was flawed, leading to instability. And it is very feasible that simply updating the microcode is the correct fix for such an issue.

If Intel had explicitly stated that the original voltage algorithm spec was wrong, and the new one fixes the issue, I'd be pretty willing to believe them, and probably wouldn't have written that comment.

I'm not saying your integration of "incorrect voltage" as meaning "voltage that we now know causes instability" is wrong. It's an ambiguous statement and either interpretation is valid. But I have experience working with PR people, they know how to avoid ambiguous statements.

PR people are also experts at using ambiguous statements to their advantage. Crafting statements where not only are there multiple possible interoperation, but statements where the average reader will tend to interpret in the best possible way. I have experience in helping PR people to craft such statements. There are a few other examples of "ambitious statements" in that statement, which leads me to question the honesty of the whole thing.