I can find no mention of it on the FFS website but Italians, Germans and Spaniards have all been talking about it. I wonder if there is a bit of patriotism at play.
The report on the Basque forum is particularly interesting to me for two reasons. Firstly, they correctly identify the main problem as being that the Croll cannot be inspected because you can't see the thickness of the wear plate. They say, " Efecto que no es f?cil de controlar visualmente hasta que surge el astillamiento en plena actividad." Which roughly translated says that the effect cannot be easily visually monitored until the splinter is fully active. In other words the first you know about it is when the Croll jams, which happened to two of them. They say that they prefer earlier Crolls because the wear is easy to detect. Secondly, like me they are also very disappointed with the response from Petzl.
I was also a loyal and confident user of Petzl gear since it first appeared. However, I now think Petzl have really lost the plot. The level of engineering expertise involved in producing the B16BAA Croll appears to be wholly inadequate. This is confirmed by their claim that the wear plate increases durability. It obviously will not increases durability but will do the opposite. If they claimed that it reduces friction that would be true but they don't make that claim. They have not done any testing of the wear or they would not make the risible claim that the plate increases durability.
I suspect that the addition of the wear plate has more to do with marketing than engineering. It makes the Croll look a bit more high-tech but it is an illusion and it makes Petzl look like engineering amateurs.