The 'problem' with SpaceX is that you don't have any publicly available prior detailed definition of the full test objectives/experiments (and, fairly often, not afterwards either). You know the headlines - this time they will attempt to catch the first stage - but you don't entirely know eg what re-entry thermal protection solutions they are testing (some tiles were clearly slightly damaged on Starship, visible prior to re-entry interface, but the incandescent material that is flying past from the lower to the upper sides, the sparking, is that due to experimental test articles composed of different materials, or just ablative filler, or due to hardware failure?). Nor do we know quite what energy management profile they intended to fly (some of the trans-entry regime flow dynamics were suggestive of banking to bleed off energy). There were clearly signs of burn through to (near-)structural failure in locations and certainly indications of thermally driven oxidative stress on the upper surfaces of the flaps that weren't there during the orbital coast. Though the fact that they managed to put it down within camera range of a buoy in the Pacific would suggest that they retained sufficient structural integrity to command controlled flight down to the surface (except, again since they aren't totally open about these things, for all we know they actually had a fleet of camera buoys spaced out there and got lucky with the nearest one).
