I think the word chosen by FAA is "REVIEW".
There is no way to assess the depth of concern, or scope of the review.
I lean toward calling it a "slow roll". You know it's a roll, but the urgency is lacking.
It is difficult to come up with an answer, the evidence is compelling, only the rate is suspicious.
"The risks were not downplayed; but they may not have received proper emphasis at the operations level...."
"Insufficient internal structure led to overheat, the loss of dissipation capability led to smell, and smoke."
"There is only one occurrence of combustion, Boston, and that was an overload via GPU, not APU...."
etc.
The discouraging thing, is that there is probably way too much concern over how to "play" it, rather than solve it.