I think by now we can all understand that the "extremely remote" issue cannot be definitively cleared up either way, as there is no wording regarding context in the regulation,e.g. remote when compared to what, previous occurances?, for all aircraft ?, by manufacturer ?, by type ?, what if it's a radically different design ?,if it does happen once early in service life and is addressed, does the clock get re-wound ? Hopefully regulators will address this issue for future wording. No doubt some lawyers somewhere will make a great deal of money argueing about it, but it's a no win situation either way.
There are some issues with the MRGB - the cracks appearing in the mounting lugs which has the type under a 10 hour inspection schedule does not calm rattled nerves, so the sooner it's resolved the better.
Everybody wants to see confidence back in the machine, none more so than the people who are transported to work in it. It is important to realize that the perception of the ultimate enduser (PAX) is key to getting this back on track, so any questions or concerns they have should be properly addressed in a professional manner, especially by the people whose job it is to address these issues.
Nobody's interested in looking over someone else's shoulder at the OEM - they know their business.
Just fix any outstanding issues, and let people know if there's a new problem and what's being done to address it. No big secret. All machines require maintenance & repairs - offshore workers realize this better than most as their livelyhood depends on doing just that with some of the biggest, most expensive equipment out there.