A week or so ago I went to the NHTSA web site to learn more about the issue. The problem was initially reported about 16 months ago. After about an hour of digging around the site (not user friendly), I finally got to the documentation and correspondence between DC and the NHTSA. It got pretty heated on the DC side and they were adamant the 48re didn't have the problem noted. They backed this up with tests on two trannies set on a bench in a lab. Their data showed that the park indicator would not light and the pawl was in position before detent. I have to believe these were not randomly chosen units fresh from the factory, and they certainly weren't in their normal operating environment.
I went out to my 2500 and tried to duplicate their results. On a slight grade with nose high, slowly shifted toward park and stopped just when the park indicator lit. Then I took my foot off the brake and rolled backward... not in park or reverse, but kinda like limbo. I did it a total of 6 times and 4 times it rolled back. If it went passed a certain point in the detent then the pawl engaged. Not exactly what DC reported to NHTSA! However, going into reverse the same way of just starting into detent, I was in limbo every time; the R was lit up but the transmission was in non-dedicated N. Nothing at all like DC's data presented to the Feds. But then, my truck may be one in a million with those characteristics... or not. One data point proves nothing.
The final decision was not on the site when I checked, but I suspect DC cut a deal to minimize/eliminate possible future litigation and bad press for a formal recall. For my truck, I can't see it going from "park-limbo" all the way into full reverse, but it can certainly not be in park with the indicator saying it was.
Bottom line is DC probably has a problem they don't want to own up to, IMHO.
Enjoy your day and God Bless,
Merv