Saying that the vendor was "90 percent of the way toward a solution" could mean anything; for example, they had the hack, but were testing it to see if would work for all iPhone models.
If you're going to throw out a conspiracy theory, you should have something to back it up.
In fact, if you read the report, which includes these statements, "In the (FBI elite hacking unit) Chief’s view, the fact that he was not asked for help sooner was not a mistake in judgment or communication breakdown on CEAU’s part, but rather the result of a long-standing policy that the ROU Chief understood created a “line in the sand ”against using national security tools in criminal cases." -- which if true, given the events were a known terrorist attack, would have made the events a national security matter.
For some of these agencies I would almost expect them to, let’s say embellish or fabricate, under oath to protect highly classified information. Does that not make them a tainted witness if they have to speak in half truths under oath?
The only way to get an absolutely fair trial would be if all of the information were declassified, or the judge, jury, and lawyers had security clearance. And who without a high clearance could judge what is pertinent to the case?
I think we have always known that justice and secrets clash, which is why we have (had) watchdog groups as a compromise.