IMHO, the OP really should have considered revealing the make & model of the cleaner, liquids used, etc. I understand & respect the rationale of not initially wanting to criticize a specific manufacturer without knowing if the mfr is at fault, but in this case, that seems inappropriate.
Even if the problem occurs only during a specific use case, it does a disservice to the community to conceal the details. Many of us may have the same model or may be about to do whatever it is that specifically damaged the OP's records. And those of us who do duplicate that use case without a problem should be given the opportunity to say so.
But if there is a real product-specific issue, that should not be concealed, nor should a manufacturer of a defective product, or one that publishes risky procedures, be encouraged to continue without addressing the issue. If the OP's experience is rare, due to an isolated product defect, or even the OP's own fault, that fact would be more likely to come out in the thread if we know the details.
But if this is a legitimate product issue that affects all units, reporting the issue in detail without giving readers a way to know whether their own systems are vulnerable, or even giving the mfr a chance to evaluate and rectify the issue, doesn't get anyone anywhere. E.g., if someone reading this thread reports a similar problem, we wouldn't even know if the issue can occur in more than one model of ultrasonic -- a crucial fact for armchair-analysts trying to understand exactly what is happening.
Just my 2c, but worth considering.