While PIV is often regarded as the "official" guide to Esperanto, it has never been considered flawless. If it were, it would never be necessary to publish updates or corrections. People question the contents all the time - including here on Stack Exchange.
The question about indas began with a comparison of what is in PIV and how the word is most commonly used. In the telegram group for Esperanto Stack Exchange, Chuck Smith questioned the validity of the 4th definition in PIV for sekso, cited in a recent answer here. I'm pretty sure that I myself have questioned PIV recently. Some of these claims may right, and some of them may be wrong. They are not all wrong.
A Google search for "eraroj en PIV" pulls up several lists of korektoj or other commentary on this work. I call your attention to the very detailed analysis by the author of PMEG:
Claude Piron fame kritikis PIV-on, kaj mi kredas ke Renato Corsetti simile faras.
One example of my own criticism of PIV involves the definition of klaso - to which Bertilo Wennergren replied that he believes that I'm correct and that this is "ankoraŭ unu ekzemplo (el multaj) de mallerte verkita difino en PIV."
Generally, I look at PIV as a definitive guide, but when it conflicts with other reliable sources (including my own sense of things, as in the example with klaso) I check other sources and ask other trusted experts.