There is only one claim, ie. "Ambulance when required". The point of contention is who decides what required means.

Tesla has a perverse cost saving incentive to recommend the cheaper option. The person in shock is no position to make a rational decision. It is medical practitioner's responsibility to put his practice before his employer and decide what is a medically appropriate response. The emergency service has an incentive to be deployed regardless of severity.

The comments section in general, agrees that a severed finger and crushed hand are sufficiently severe injuries to warrant an ambulance.

It seems pretty.obvious to me that lay-managers and CEOs should not be the ones deciding emergency policy. That is what trained practitioners are for and the expectation is that they will hold the org to a certain regulatory safety standard.