There is huge difference between what.......
Look, this cladding was the cause of an identical fire 3 years ago in Melbourne. The autopsy of that event showed that this exact same cladding did not meet safety regulations and you would have thought that this testing would have been sufficient evidence to stop its use here.
It also does not meet fire regulations here.
I can tell you that (regardless of what the modern day regulation making geeks would like to say) there is nothing particularly complicated about what is safe and what isn't. I was taught while working for Brent health and safety that you had to use common sense first. This is because there can be things that breach regulation but are not causing any particular risk (and so advice is the best course of action rather than a penalty), and there can be things that are not breaching regulation that could pose a substantial risk and should be treated more aggressively.
There are a lot of flammable materials use in construction - America has more than a couple of timber buildings - but when these materials are used you have to modify procedures to account for the risk. There is no way that the cladding used on Grenfell meant that the same fire safety procedures should have stayed in place. Of course a sprinkler system would have helped, but the instruction should have been altered to evacuation rather than staying in your flat. This latter advice probably quadrupled the death toll.
We are not talking about string theory, we are talking about combustible panels being glued onto fire resistant concrete. How much testing is actually required here if you don't have access to the internet?
The whole thing is madness. Last week I had to fire proof an RSJ I installed to comply with regulation. Have you ever tried setting light to an RSJ?
Before and after:
