Bluntly: they expended that credit a while ago. Those that can will move on. Those that can't have a real problem.
As for your last sentence:
Businesses really do care about the incident reports because they give good insight into whether they can trust the company going forward. Full transparency and a clear path to non-repetition due to process or software changes are called for. You be the judge of whether or not you think that standard has been met.
I might be looking at it differently, but aren't decisions over a certain provider of service being made by the management. Incident reports don't ever reach there in my experience.
Every company that relies on their suppliers and that has mature management maintains internal supplier score cards as part of their risk assessment, more so for suppliers that are hard to find replacements for. They will of course all have their of thresholds for action but what has happened in the last period with CF exceeds most of the thresholds for management comfort that I'm aware of.
Incident reports themselves are highly technical, so will not reach management because they are most likely simply not equipped to deal with them. But the CTOs of the companies will take notice, especially when their own committed SLAs are endangered and their own management asks them for an explanation. CF makes them all look bad right now.
In my experience, the gist of it does reach management when its an existing vendor. Especially if management is tech literate
Becuase management wants to know why the graphs all went to zero, and the engineers have nothing else to do but relay the incident report.
This builds a perception for management of the vendor, and if the perception is that the vendor doesnt tell them shit or doesnt even seem to know theres an outage, then management can decide to shift vendors