It’s a shame that the designers didn’t consult, or seemingly, take into account the USB-C spec when they drafted the dimensions of the ports, at least for the larger one.
It specifies a maximum 12.35mm width / 6.5mm height for cable overmold dimensions.
I measure ~12mm width on my LT1, so a minor increase could have accommodated any spec-compliant cable, at least in theory.
But, there are no doubt plenty of cables that aren’t compliant, and the flashlight makers themselves have done a notably poor job of properly implementing USB-C ports on their products, by ignoring the need for termination pull-up resistors to identify their C-connections as downstream ports. Or, a battery charger maker employing a non-compliant proprietary power protocol on their products with USB-C power inputs, and not the standard protocol synonymous with the spec.
However, Sofirn does deserve credit for doing a better than average job with the covers, which aren’t as fussy, or flimsy as some out there, just a bit too small.
I wouldn’t go that far to say a shame. As you said, it’s a good product, I enjoy it very much and will buy it again for sure. Just trying to see if there is a way to improve it. I truly think providing a cable (something like the one that comes with the ThruNite TS2) will solve the problem.
When the original LT came out those on that interest list were emailed a discount code from Sofirn for purchasing the lantern. My guess is that this interest list will be used for the same purpose.
You just have to say you want to be put on the interest list in order to be added to it. There is no obligation to purchase for those on it.