Just posted a comment with the same general analysis, although with maybe less shade. You're looking at #8 from camera left to right, right?

The Majority of the tendons broke at the bottom, reflecting the investigation findings. The tendons which separated at the top could simply be from the top connections of those tendons being faster corroded than the bottom in those locations, or a result of shock from the bridge arch rebounding upwards after losing most of it's load. Or, as is the case in reality, shit is messy and never follows a model 100%

⁠​⁠@@ACME_Kinetics I have never understood what’s meat by directionals such as “camera left”. If we count the cables in order of the truck’s direction of travel in the video the first one to break appears to be either the 5th or 4th cable. Since viewing this video, I search of other video of the event. This one seems to be an excerpt of video made by the Taiwanese Coast Guard, who have video monitoring for security purposes. I am assuming the investigators had the raw footage and would have need better able to determine what happened. However, it does look to me like the cables were still attached at the bottom when the bridge fell. It is possible the bottom were corroded, and broke when the bridge hit bottom, either from direct impact, or from the stress of the weight of the cables being twisted as they came to rest after the fall. But it looks to me like the finding obscures the possibility that the original cable design wasn’t strong enough from its inception, or wasn’t effectively connected at the top of the structure. I also think it was a disaster waiting to happen, because the arch was anchored to the roadbed without any independent means of support. So if the roadbed moved, it would put a lot of stress on the arch, much like the movement of the string puts stress on a bow in archery. If that happened, it would pull on the suspension cables-the would need to get longer when the bow beings, or snap if they were not sufficiently strong, even without salt water erosion. The typhoon and earthquake gave the bridge quite a stress test before the tanker came along. That snap is what I believe happened in this case. After the typhoon and earthquake had pulled on the proverbial bow string, the cables moorings at the top were stressed…the truck was the last straw. This will happen again if they don’t take that into account.

@@kentijohnson1522 Camera (more often called audience) left just means (in this case) the view we're seeing from the video camera that recorded this. Stage left would be the opposite, or in this case if you were standing on the bridge looking at the audience/camera. I think you have it pretty much right, although since I believe the investigation to be incorrect based on this video, I can't be sure. I'm sure the general design idea would've been fine if it were specified and then constructed correctly, as it's a relatively short and narrow span. Although lateral stress would put equal stress on the roadbed, which IMO should have been less strong than the arch itself - cracking the roadbed wouldn't put the entire structure into the water.

@@wyattroncin941 The majority didn't initiate the start of the cascading failure - the first failure did.

The stadium roof fail began at 23 minutes. If you didn't want to watch the previous portions, you could have advanced the video.