Consider the following description of the PIP case:

"Poly Implant Prosthese $($PIP$)$ did not use medical grade polyurethane. This was motivated by cost$-$saving. However, as a result the material they used was toxic to patients and a high rate of patients became sick from the implant. PIP had been subject to a legitimate process of medical device regulation by a notified body called TUV Rheinland. The notified body was presented with accurate documentation by PIP but they failed to spot the manufacturing problem. As a result PIP received a reduced penalty, though it still had to cease production and halt surgeries. Overall it was a relatively simple legal resolution. The PIP case is a good example of where the medical device regulation process can break down through basic human error."

There are $8$ sentences in the description. How many of the sentences are factually incorrect?