I believe the vendor here produces both the device and the panels being plugged into it, and while they also supply other vendors' panels, they seem concerned primarily with customers who buy all components from them and then experience this failure.
I agree the labeling is an issue here, but the solution must come from the wider industry or regulatory bodies; the alternative is for vendors to switch to their own pseudo-units to internalize the math, which would not be good for customers either - think "ACME Generator2000 accepts up to 4 Power Units of input; each ACME SuperEco Panel supplies 1 Power Unit, or 1.5 Power Units if you're in Canada...".
Saving users from having to do a little thinking to not brick their device is a tried-and-true excuse for vendor lock-in in our industry :).
Why not label the panel with the maximum possible voltage that it can produce? Or even have a little table showing the maximum possible voltage at various ambient temperatures. It's not as if there isn't room on the back of the panel for a big enough label.
This is information is generally stated on the module datasheets, which specify the Open Circuit Voltage (V_OC) at Standard Test Conditions (STC), and then provide a temperature coefficient for how that voltage changes with temperature. 'Maximum voltage' is very arbitrary as this is directly dependant on the lowest expected operating temperature, hence the industry has landed on stating these values at standardized conditions (STC and NOCT) allowing for direct comparison.
The label on the modules themselves tend to also provide these ratings at STC, e.g. this label from Jinko specifies the Open circuit voltage and also summarizes the conditions assumed for STC:
https://image.made-in-china.com/202f0j00LURcYuatWIqH/Jinko-M...
While I agree that the label could also add the temperature coefficient, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to expect that specialist electrical equipment details all of its operating parameters on an attached label without the expectation of consulting a datasheet or manual. For specific products that primarily target non-specialised consumers however, a different labelling approach may be warranted.
The entire industry has standardized in having "typical" and "maximum" values decades ago. That problem there is completely self-imposed.
The flip side of this is also dumb labelling. ‘Product may contain traces of nuts’.
Completely unhelpful to those that need the info.
That is in fact useful information to someone that needs that info, because it means they should never eat it. I think this is a bad example, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Likely a reference to the recent addition of sesame to the allergen disclosure legislation in the US, and the subsequent rampant over labeling.
Nobody seems to remember a bunch of companies receiving rather large fines for pulling known bull-crap "may contain sesame."