Main stream black swan risk assessment

A lesson in interpretation of 'science' and an example of how science is used now the way religious texts were used up until the early 1900's:

The paragraph below is taken from this report, written by a 'Sir' and a Doctor.  (Akin to a Bishop and a Preist I suppose)

"But these events pale in comparison to the superstorms of 1921 (which disabled telegraph
services) and the Carrington event of 1859, which could cripple electrical and digital
communications infrastructure around the globe if it were to happen today. Predicted contemporary
impacts of a Carrington-level event include power outages to 20–40 million people in the US for
durations from 16 days to one to two years, with a cost estimate in the trillions of dollars. Major
and potentially lasting disruptions of space-based and earth-based critical infrastructures for
communication and transportation (navigation and traffic control) and cascading impacts on other
sectors are also to be expected. The likelihood of such an event is estimated between 6 and 12% in
the next ten years."

The writing is specifically structured to lead an average reader to think that we face a high risk of a 'Carrington Event' in the next 10 years. Basically a 1 in 10 chance we will have 'such an event' (Remember, almost everyone would be frightened by and refuse a vaccine injection if a doctor told them "You have a 1 in 10 chance of sustaining brain damage from this vaccine" because, for the patient "the risk is frighteningly high".  Which it actually is in that context.  Which is the context we are 'conditioned' to.

In the case of solar weather context: If we unpack the possible meaning behind those "scientific derived numbers and statements" we might realise it means something quite different for risk.
For the purpose of the arguments below lets fix the risk at 10% in the next 10 years to make the math easier.

It would appear that 10% risk means that: If we look at  10 separate decades (the next 100 years in total) it is calculated that in ONE of those decades (1/10=10%) 'such an event' will occur.  And ... we don't know which one.  It could be next year ... or 99 years from now.  I have been alive for almost 5 decades ... I've never seen a 'carrington level event'.  My grandparents and parents lived through more than 10 decades ... they never saw a Carrington level event either.  Why?

Two likely reasons.  Risk of an event is not evenly spaced through time.  In the real world 10 carrington level events may occur in just one decade (as the sun becomes super-active for a while) and then none for the next 1000 years.  Does THAT concept of risk seem more or less scary than "1 in 10 Chance?"  They are scientifically identical!

Then we have to ask ourselves ... what is the meaning of the phrase 'such an event' in this report?  The sentence with the numbers included in it doesn't also include the words 'Carrington Level Event effecting earth'.
So is this paragraph really saying in one of the next ten decades we will experience a solar storm that disrupts infrastructure and comms to some serious level (but not specifically a catastrophic level)?  Or there will be 10 'significant events in the next 1000 years'? Or even "the sun is will generate a CME that 'IS CAPABLE of causing a carrington level event' but which may or may not effect comms and infrastructure on earth depending on the direction it travels.   There is a lot of information missing from the statement isn't there?

Any time we see science and numbers bandied around ... take the time to really think about what is NOT being said about how they are derived ... and what they really mean.