The fact they don't include "just other normal planes" in that list calls into question the quality of this whole document. It really seems like this document was just thrown together with no real intent to get into the weeds on the reports. It does also seem like they are trying so hard to be vague to avoid running afoul of information classification rules. The White House needs to tell them to stop going so overboard with classification. Overclassification is a real problem in government.

If they knew it was just another normal plane then it would not be unidentified. They actually identify countless objects every day. This report was not about them.

They're listing possibilities. Planes are one possibility, just as balloons, birds, and everything else they listed. Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online (not in this dataset). Planes are a legitimate, high likelihood possibility for some of the reports. It has to be included on any list of possibilities used in investigating them.

I misunderstand what you mean by Planes have been with high confidence attributed to multiple civilian recorded videos posted online

It sounds like you're saying that civilians have videos of planes but the people taking the video don't know what they are. Is that what you mean? If so, the people taking the video may not know what it is, but that doesn't mean US Military & Intelligence agencies don't know.

In general though, you seem to be faulting a report whose explicit scope was an assessment only of UAP reports originating from Military or intelligence community sources. It was not an examination of every civilian report & video of something they can't identify.

Balloons, birds etc fall into various categories, yes. Planes on the other hand will be identifiable by by military & intelligence agencies. They don't need a special category because we have the data necessary to identify them. Meaning if we can't identify them, they aren't a normal plane, so we don't need to include that in a list of possibilities.

The Air Force knows how to identify other planes. It's not hard (for them). Radar and flight plans give little margin of doubt.

All the things in that list are like that though, "Airborne Clutter", "Natural Atmospheric Phenomena", etc. If they knew it was one of those it wouldn't be unidentified. It is entirely possible for a plane to be detected but not identified as such, so planes should be possible causes too.

I honestly don't know what you mean. If it's a plane, but not detected as such, then by definition they don't know it's a plane to put it into a "normal plane" category.

We know ever recorded flight path of every aircraft. If it is plane-like and isn't one if those planes and we don't know precisely what or whose plane it is, there are two categories in the list that are the most likely explanations.

  -USG or Industry Developmental Programs

  - Foreign Adversary Systems

That list is a list of possible causes of UAP. UAPs are things that have not been categorised. None of those listed categories are categories UAPs have been put into. Instead, they are categories that UAPs could be put into in the process of becoming identified aerial phenomena.

We know every recorded flight path, sure, but it would hardly be surprising for some ordinary plane flights not to be recorded (e.g. of small planes with a malfunctioning transponder).

If a small plane without a functioning transponder was detected on radar, without visual or flight path information, it would be a UAP, since it would be unidentified. If someone then sees the plane, or the pilot later says "that was me", it would cease to be a UAP and be put in the "normal plane" category. I.e. "normal plane" should be one of the possible causes of UAP.

Small planes:

1) Still often file a flight path in advance, and must do so if they are using instruments to fly, which is anytime they are flying at night, reduced vision, or even mildly poor weather. Even those who choose not to file will still have their takeoff/landing activity recording in flight logs.

2) If the transponder fails they will still be in radio contact. They are required to radio control, and will be proactively contacted by control as well, and then be tagged on radar.

3) If both radio & transponder are not functioning, it is a serious enough incident to require an incident report afterward as it will require an emergency landing performed with significant risk & without coordination of control.

In all of the above circumstances there will be easy data available to identify the aircraft.

At best, your argument says there are circumstances where a normal plane will-- very briefly during flight-- be a UAP as control attempts to regain coms or land the plane safely. They will never make it to the point of needing to be accounted for in a National Intelligence report on UFO's and their possible causes.

UFO reports have turned out to be planes multiple times in the past. One of the problems that often arises is that humans are not very good at judging how far away things are when that thing is quite a ways away from them. Which leads to them looking at registered flights in the area they think the object is in, and not finding a registered flight, because they're looking at the wrong spot.

Frequently these take place around military test/training sites though, which may quite likely have things in flight which are not on pre-registered paths or transmitting location data while in flight, because it's classified even above the need-to-know of just your standard radar technicians or fighter pilots. On top of that, human error is a possibility and things can be lost track of or end up in places not originally intended.

The report released today leaves the door open to all of this, so people asserting that the DoD has conclusively said that the objects reported to the UAP task force exhibit movements impossible to explain by known human technology are simply mistaken.

You seem to be talking about civilian reports of UFOs. Those are irrelevant in this report. Sure, those happen and turn out to be planes, but civilian mistakes are not the scope of this report. It is a report about incidents logged by military and intelligence agencies. There is no need for a "normal plane" category" because they already know if something is a normal civilian or commercial plane based on easily obtainable data from flight plans airport logs etc, along with their own much better tracking capabilities and sensors. Those resources will be able to identify if something is a normal plane long before the incident needs to be analyzed by an intelligence task force.

The "other" bin sounds oddly suspicious. Why would the report creators step out of their way not to clearly define a bin for intelligent (and far more advanced) extraterrestrial activity?

Because that is so unlikely that, had they listed it, they should have also listed things like Angels or Ra's chariot.

Note: there are more people in the US who believe in the literal existence of Angels and Ghosts than UFOs.

Problem is that pretty much everyone here can lay those causes easily...