hamster3null wrote:
By now they can't revise their conclusions, because Australians spent something like $43m based on their word and they'd be exposing themselves to a huge liability if their information proved false.
1. Best to distinguish between the words "false" and "mistaken." The former might imply that Inmarsat intentionally fabricated data or deliberately misinterpreted it. (And lawyers might call that libel.)
2. Inmarsat is not exposed to "huge liability" even if you assume some mistakes. A 777 with 239 souls was missing, and the search getting nowhere. Inmarsat apparently reported the information it had, along with various uncertainties, and then strove to refine and verify the data and the inferences from it.
It was the Australian government (and other parties) that decided how much to rely upon that data and interpretation and what resources to expend, presumably in consultation with others having some expertise.
In short, no obvious reason why Inmarsat would refrain from revising its conclusions if it thinks such revision warranted. Indeed, there already have been multiple revisions (that we know of) since the original announcement about northern and southern arcs.