The Concorde laid the ground work for the scientific basis of some of our airworthiness assessments today.
To say it another way, since the airplane was so different in its enviroment, some extra thought went into how to make it safe.
Today when we look at supersonci high altitude flight, we also have to look at potential decompressions and how to get the plane down quick enough to save the passengers. No real harm in a few healthy passengers passing out, but we would like them to wake up for the landing. Thus the size of the hole that lets the air out has to be considered vs the probability of the hole being made.
So a consideration is made of uncontained engine failures as well as a window out, etc. Because of this a limitation had to be placed on the size of the engines in diameter, simply due to the size of an engine disk being ejected.
I suppose that other what ifs could enter into this but they would all be veted by the historical probability of them occurring.
That of course brings one back to the arguments was the Concorde really safe enough?
In my view it was considered a leader in safety for its design period, not withstanding a couple of surprises to us in its service life. It simply had less surprises.