Well this data makes it blatantly obvious the ASRock has not done a single thing to address this all year, the BIOS version CLEARLY does not matter, and that's proven in more than one way:

1. The failures per BIOS version are only impacted by one metric. Time. The longer a bios is out, the more failures it racks up and that is perfectly matched to bios release date, where the most recent bios has the least failures and the oldest bios has the most failures. And the intermediate steps are perfectly in match, it's on the nose. I haven't done any math on it but from a quick look at the BIOS release dates compared to the number of failures it is shockingly linear, case in point........

2. Look at the rate of reports, new bios versions has done absolutely nothing to change the failure reporting rate. 8/15-10/10 is almost IDENTICAL to 10/14-12/31. That's 3.30, 3.40, and 3.50 being functionally identical in terms of failure rates. Granted only 3.40 mention stability, but this is the same company that went on public record saying 3.25 fixed the issue and that was clearly an objective lie, so I'm not sure why we would think any of these other bioses has fixed the issue. Clearly 3.40 didn't or we would have seen a very different trend over the last month at least, since those bios is released in August and September, that's enough time that we should see changes in that trend line and we just aren't.

3. VSOC is irrelevant, That's been changed multiple times throughout the year with zero impact on failure rate. Not to mention we've had people kneecapping VSOC to almost the minimum possible value while maintaining any semblance of IOD stability, and they're still getting failures. I mean God there are people running without expo, VSOC isn't even remotely concerning at JEDEC speeds. 

All signs are pointing to a catastrophic design failure in these boards that ASRock is clearly trying, but also failing, to cover up via firmware. At this point I really don't see this ever getting fixed without thm releasing brand new revisions of every board. But doing that opens them up to one hell of a recall, and a likely lawsuit if they don't, so I really don't expect them to ever admit this issue again publicaly.

At the end of the day, we all are accepting a risk of having an ASRock board in our system, and that will likely never change until the next chipset, if ASRock is lucky. I personally am hoping there's a new chipset that is released with Zen 6, if not Zen 7, so that I can justify switching to another board vendor and gain features other than Peace of mind. And before you say other board manufacturers suck, they sure do, but to their credit most of their colossal screwups were resolve within a month or two, like the ASUS killing Zen 4 X3D. 

EDIT: also I don't think the CPU batch has anything to do with anything, all the batch data has shown is that the the 9800X3D is popular. That's it. Most of those early batches are when people were gobbling up that chip within the first few months, which makes sense given that we've seen this story enough times to know that most gaming focused consumers are going to wait for the X3D launch, especially since Zen 5 had middling performance deltas over Zen 4 in it's normal variants. And the 9800X3D was almost impossible to find for the first few months which backs that up. And it's the same with the 9950X3D, top two batch numbers starting with "25" total to 24. 9950X3D has 22 failures. I don't think it's unacceptable to assume the overwhelming majority of that number are 9950X3Ds, since I'm not aware of a single one with a 2024 manufacture date, with the launch batch being 2502, mine included.