> I still can't believe that they are using statistically safer in an official response. It now have been widely discussed everywhere that 1 occurrence is not enough to draw any reliable statistical conclusion!
They probably mean that 1 occurrence is not enough to invalidate a statistical model built on wealth of other data.
Except that the other data is certainly suspect. I mean - what other source of realistic data can they possibly have that is realistic enough and large enough to be more significant that 100000000 miles of actual usage? At this level, it's the odd, unpredictable events that are going to get you, and whatever models they have cannot include all of those.
They probably mean that 1 occurrence is not enough to invalidate a statistical model built on wealth of other data.