> Why are you assuming this? Because Bloomberg didn’t report the execs’ performance reviews? Maybe they did face consequences and we just don’t know.

Because we've been alive in America long enough to see this cycle thousands of times. The execs rarely face the music for bad decisions. A round of layoffs looks like a failure to us, but to the investors it was a good idea that didn't work out so there's no punishment for trying to save money.

Conversely, why do you jump to their defence? Large companies treat employees as a cost centre, and if a cheaper alternative becomes available then they're let go. It's not a huge leap of faith to assume so in this case.

Agreed, but what they’ve done isn’t illegal (IANAL). A performance review doesn’t address the irreparable harm these actions may cause.

It is reasonable to assume, that this could be walked back in such a way that no one is held accountable.

bad performance review and a layoff are completely different worlds.

I imagine our current hyper-corporate landscape would have us making that assumption.

Are there any recent documented instances of executives being punished in some level of career-affecting way for bad performance?

Even when they get fired they get golden parachutes.

Example: Sam Altman founded a complete failure of a location-based social network, where the board tried to remove him twice, lied about being chairman of the YCombinator board, and now gets to be CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world where the board tried to remove him as CEO once.

Failing up is very common in our corporate system.

It seems that you don't understand governance in corporate America. For some education, read "Barbarians at the Gate".