I have come around to the view that it is reasonable that commercial issues dictate that a plane with a latent design flaw continues to fly until testing or at least two accidents can demonstrate that the flaw exists in a way which is more than just an unfortunate and mysterious fluke
Well that is an incredibly frank and honest statement.
Thinking about it, what other options do FAA/EASA have? Slice something off the environmental envelope of the plane as a precaution? Require that the engines be run up at least once during a CDA approach?
One thing that gives me hope is that there are precedents for extremely improbable failures being diagnosed years after the initial accident: e.g. UA585 and US427 ... the NTSB reports were finally adopted 10 years and 5 years after the accidents, respectively.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2001/AAR0101.pdf
Fingers crossed, but not holding my breath.