Woodpeckers' One-Time-Tool-produce-it-and-forget-it, in my opinion, creates a culture within that operation of minimum field testing and development. Why fret the small stuff if you are only planning on one production run.
I know my position is unpopular among fans of Woodpeckers products. But I suspect that the popularity of their product relates more to the quality feel of the pieces than the functionality. Their products do feel like fine instruments.
At the risk of being accused of being a fanboy (which I am definitely not), there are many One-Time-Tools that have received updates over the years based on feedback from prior iterations, and others that have entered regular production due to their popularity. I'm sure their tools are tested in house by actual woodworkers, rather than just having bean counters approve designs and plans, but there's no substitute for real-world testing. And at the apparently production levels they have, they'd have to make a full OTT run just to get the volume they would need.
I don't follow social media enough to know if they partner with "influencers" at all, but even when I see "influencers" testing a tool, I'm skeptical of how much honest feedback they actually provide to their partners (see also: Festool didn't seem to change much of anything on the TID after handing them out to a bunch of people to test and review). And quite honestly, does Woodpecker's even need the exposure? 3-4 month lead times slipping to 8-12 months because of over-exposure (not to mention even quicker knock-offs from overseas).
Of course, there are still others that are just plain duds, like with any tool lineup.