SASless
3 points, 120° apart is the most optimum, and also minimum for stable mount of anything... the problem is - it gives no redundancy. Depending on what it does - if one fail - the whole thing no longer serve it purpose.. or the other two will surely fail with time (rather short).
For example, a 4 legged table is problematic if one leg is shorter, there is no such problem in 3 legged table, but a two legged can't exist.
I don't know what kind of forces that filter bowl have cope with in S-92, except the vibrations is there a pressure on it?
In design world, it's usually making things as light, cheap and easy to make and use as possible, while still performing its task with some specific safety factor. The material used have usually no significance whatsoever - its strengths and shortcomings are known, so the parts are engineered to use all the pros, and limit the cons. If the design criteria are the same - in the end it doesn't matter if it is titanium, steel or spider web, it will do what it should, and will brake at the same point. Though the costs, size and weight will be different.
If the whole thing broke because of that one stud,
the design criteria were wrong. Maybe 6 would safe the day... though gave ground crew hell, requiring twice the time to mount and dismount.
And BTW, my take on designing flaws is this: ANY part breakage is because the design was wrong - either the design criteria was wrongly assumed, or manufacturing process overly trusted, or some types of misuse not foreseen. Call it 'engineer paranoia', but it's true if you think about it
Foreseen everything - that's what is teached in programing, and I'm trying to use in engineering... though cost savings are usually what cuts engineers wings.