Hi,

Post viva, I need to do corrections based on the report.

The report highlighted the examiners' misunderstanding of the thesis aim/arguments.

Yes, they misunderstood or misread the very first bit written in the abstract in a (most, clearest) manner to make the readers understand what the thesis is about.

Throughout the report, such similar errors were presented.

What should I do with this report? (apart from discussing those errors with my supervisor, please)

You would not say "just correct your research aim in accordance with the report", would you?

Not to be brutal but it is your job as the author to present your arguments in a clear concise manner that is easily understood. It may make sense to you and be perfectly clear but your examiners disagree. If they think the research aims and content don't match, they don't match. It is not the examiners fault for not understanding but yours for not explaining it well.

I would just do the corrections as they say and get my PhD. I would take all their comments on board and rephrase entire sections. If the content is good you just have to explain it in a different way.

I see. Thank you for your post.

I now try to look at my research in the way as rewt suggested (changing the original aim/research arguments to what the examiners described in the report) and see if it still makes any sense.

Due to the nature of the research, we had a long difficult period to find the examiners. Those kindly agreed thus can/are not experts in all the areas covered by the research. This fact mesmerised myself that the examiners might not grasp the whole picture of the thesis.

I found the views from other people who are academic and do not know the details of the research extremely helpful. If anyone who reads this post has any ideas/views, please share them with me here.

By definition nobody will be an expert in all the areas covered by your research. As rewt says, it is your job to communicate with your examiners on that basis.
I am with rewt on this I'm afraid. If your examiners are not clear on the overall purpose of your research, this is absolutely on you to fix it.

I had this problem with some of my thesis as well. I simply wrote a paragraph in my response to indicate that I was clarifying points which I had made unclear in the original thesis and thanked the examiners for highlighting their concerns and that I hoped I had now resolved the issues to the satisfaction of the examiner. There were several instances of this. I didn't just blindly do what they asked but I did need to make sure I wasn't defensive in my response.

I understand what you suggested, pm133. Thank you for the input.

My supervisor is in the area identified and discussed 'erroneously' by the report and not quite keen on the changes made by the report. (Hence I was seeking some views other than discussing with own supervisor/s.) I would LOVE to avoid being of a conflicting view with my academic boss.

However, as a candidate, when it comes to things like this, I am uncertain which way is the right/calm/peaceful/(&safe) way (for me to get the PhD in question). So posted here.

Any further views/opinions are appreciated. (Anyone experienced the same situation?)

Well good luck with this but you are going to have to learn very quickly how to have disagreements with your bosses in a suitable manner. You simply cannot avoid intellectual conflicts in life without causing irrepairable damage to your career.
This is of course your PhD and you need to decide what the best approach is for your situation.

Many thanks for your reply.

I'll look into how to address the issues!