FWIW, I think think this is refreshing honesty, and the right first move. In an engineering organization, leadership is responsible for setting the culture, the quality standards, and the development processes. These should all protect against a few bad engineers because there are layers of review, validation, and tracking before bad software reaches production. That didn't happen -- and regardless of why, leadership is accountable.
When you have a failure like this, you replace the leadership. It's the new team's responsibility to fix the process, and then determine if the quality problems are starting at a lower level with the engineers. This is exactly right, and the only thing I can fault Lucid for is not doing it sooner. I assume the problem was "we're 90% there, we can just get to launch" not realizing the remaining 10% would take another 90% of the time without first fixing the failing engineering practices.
It's hard for me to say, but a lot of the glitches I've been seeing scream "vibe coding" to me -- using code assistants to write functionality without understanding how it works or reviewing it properly, and creating layer upon layer of technical debt. I wonder if someone in leadership jumped on the AI assistant bandwagon early on without understanding how to make these tools effective, and it bit them in the end. All of the display and synchronization glitches really push me toward this belief, because it's what I'm most used to seeing in otherwise impressive-looking genAI-assisted development.