^^^^Yep, correct on one point, I'm assuming MT would have mentioned had the repair been cover under warranty. 'Imo', seems leaving out that crucial bit of information would call into question their journalistic integrity. Also, seems to me the dealer would have immediately told MT it would be covered under warranty, and would not have asked, " Whaddya wanna do?" Seems a very reasonable inference and conclusion.
As for the cost of stud repair, I couldn't care less how it was derived by the dealer. MT listed the itemized cost of the services, that's that. So much for that strawman.
And yep, if MT bore the cost as a customer would have and MT implied, the term stealership is intended to be negative and appropriate. Don't need to be quick study to pick up on that.