On the distinctions of CAPS pulls, activations, deployments, fatalities and saves

Doing some work on updating the Cirrus accident statistics information, largely prompted by Carol Jensen's recent work with updating CDM charts.

That gave rise to clarifying how we distinguish the kinds of information about CAPS parachute pulls.  I would appreciate your thoughts on these distinctions:

• CAPS activation -- a pre-impact initiation of the CAPS system, possibly intentionally by someone in the plane or by physical forces, and not including post-impact activations
• CAPS deployment -- the familiar scene of a round parachute with a Cirrus underneath
• CAPS save -- the survival of someone in the aircraft after a CAPS deployment

Hence, for a CAPS save to occur, there must be a CAPS deployment and a CAPS activation.

What gets messy is when bad things happen and people are injured or die involving CAPS.  Here are all of the situations where something didn't go right with CAPS involved:

• Lexington, KY -- not a CAPS activation, because of the witness reports that the rocket fired off after impact after a survivable emergency off-airport landing
• Norden, CA -- a CAPS activation, although we cannot confirm if by pilot action or physical forces due to the excessive airspeed descent, but not a CAPS deployment because the parachute separated from the airframe and not a CAPS save because the fatality of the only person aboard
• Indianapolis, IN -- a CAPS activation by the passenger and a CAPS deployment, even though it was incomplete, and a CAPS save, because three people survived even though the pilot was fatally injured
• Sydney, Australia -- a CAPS activation because of the actions of the pilot, but not a CAPS deployment because of a malfunction of the pick-up collar, later addressed by an airworthiness directive, and hence not a CAPS save.
• Deltona, FL -- a CAPS activation and a CAPS deployment but not a CAPS save because while the parachute opened the aircraft impacted trees and terrain with sufficient force to kill both people aboard
• Boulder, CO -- a CAPS activation, although likely from the force of the midair collision and less likely from a deliberate act by someone in the airplane, and a CAPS deployment because we saw the aircraft descend under canopy but not a CAPS save because both people perished

Now, there is another dimension to add to these distinctions -- was the system operated within the design parameters?  Not too fast and not too low.

• Norden -- too fast
• Indianapolis -- too low
• Deltona -- too low

Where this is headed is to try and avoid the notion of failure to save someone from injury or fatality.  In my opinion, we are better served by distinguishing what happened and what resulted.