But even that smacks of wanting to be sure the VP knows what the problem is while it's still dramatic.
In a way, your DH dropped the ball during the time when problems could still have been avoided for the company.
Seriously, it will damage his career hugely for him to pop up *now*, after the damage has been done, to say "It was his fault and I sort of knew things were going to go wrong a month ago. Here's proof."
The VP is going to say, "Why didn't you bring me this concern a month ago, when you started to see potential problems? That's why I said you could bring any concerns to me. So that we could prevent problems and fix things while they were still fixable."
Earlier, when you misunderstand the timeline, and before the OP clarified that the problem was just brought to light, you were saying that the OP's husband should not go to the big boss because too much time has elapsed. Now you are saying that the OP's husband going to the VP now, while the metaphorical iron is still hot, is "dramatic." It seems that your position is just that the OP's husband should keep his head down and shut up.
The VP knows that the boss is questionably competent - upper level management does not tell people several levels below to report directly to them regarding their supervisor's performance unless they have good reason to suspect that performance is extremely unsatisfactory. I doubt it will be a smart career move for OP's husband to act like he's unaware of the problem or to ignore the instructions of the VP to report exactly this kind of situation to him.