It all sounds like a lot of obfuscation. Not specifically what you are saying: the concept in general.
Well, it's been used in Aviation for about 70 years now and has made flying through the air in a metal tube at 500 MPH the safest way to travel, which is bananas, but it must be quite effective.
The reason it's effective is we're dealing with very rare statistical events. Events that you want to be so rare that they never happen. Events that you can't let happen just to see how likely they are, because they kill people. Events driven only when the
swiss cheese safety model fails. Events so rare that when they happen, the statistics completely change. (For instance, the Concorde went from being the statistically safest airliner to the least safe in one incident). Events that shouldn't ever happen, so you can't test your system for how often they happen.
So all you can do is deal in 9's, and then do an analysis that undertakes serious engineering and statistical processes to show you are there. What you don't do in a serious safety environment is release your product to the public and see how many people die, and then refine it some, and see if less people die.
Of course, none of this really applies when you're seeing your system fail every 75 miles. That's just a crap system if it has anything to do with safety.
Note: When you're dealing with 6+ nines, the I had an FAA expert once tell me "the first time it happens, statistics is a bitch. The second time you have a problem." Notice how with the 737-Max, the first crash led to an investigation, and the second one led to an immediate grounding?
What's your intuition on how we should define and evaluate safety for systems which should go millions of miles without a failure, before we release them, if using 9's is "obfuscation"? What kind of data would you like to see from Tesla before they allow FSD to go L4?