The issue is someone not putting a voltage limiter on the CPU, chipset, or motherboard to prevent damage.
This is an excellent example post of individuals conflating the many things happening here. Quite a few pages worth at this point of the same half-accurate truths, and it's not that surprising. Unfortunately for ASUS, the OCP issue made for some theatrics and detracted from a much deeper problem. In Steve's shoes, I would have personally covered this separately in order to avoid confusing his audience, as the saga and its makeup have enough legs to be covered in this way.
The TLDR is it would have made more sense to focus on why it happens, rather than what happens after. This is also applicable to the thermal trip not working as intended which didn't get as much airtime. All of these subsequent failures do not directly address why the CPU is failing in the first place, and without AMD's direct interjection, I don't think we will find out.
To draw back to why I singled the above quote out, giving partners some control comes down to wanting to make the CPU competitive. AMD EXPO endorses 6000MT, after all, and had pushed for these kits to be used with review kits. Whilst memory vendors are able to programme a multitude of rails into the SPD profile, the majority if not all decided to forfeit applying a manual VSOC voltage. Does that mean the memory vendor expects the kits to be able to run at stock CPU voltages? No. This isn't uncommon, and the memory vendor knows the motherboard vendor's auto rules kick in, which look for the worst case in terms of silicon quality. The media has clearly ascertained that ASUS is applying more VSOC than the competition, but what they haven't been able to ascertain is at what voltage this issue is averted. As we know, there have been failures across multiple board vendors, one case claiming to be run at stock.
There isn't a great deal of documentation on what's defined as stock. For instance, there are 5200MT memory kits with timing adjustments - is this stock? EXPO is still very new, after all. It is also very important to realise from an engineering perspective, that frequency and current are intrinsically related. To give an example, we can claim that 1.25v is a "safe" level of voltage for 5600MT, but is it also safe for 6000MT? As we increase the frequency, the current also increases. With Intel, for example, the whitepapers only offer voltage guidelines at stock frequencies. Naturally, some CPUs will need more voltage than others when at the upper platform limits, so if 1.25v isn't enough we have to either back off the overclock or apply more if able to do so. Some users are already finding this out for themselves. When we also consider the VSOC being fed for the I/O die - it may potentially transpire that you really can't push the voltage that high at all. How else does one explain multiple failures on various boards, not all of which would have been applying circa 1.3v+. Ultimately, there's blame to be shared everywhere here IMO.