That is like saying if any police organization is corrupt in any way, then we can assume they all are deeply corrupt.
So, yes, the distinction is substantive.
So, yes, the distinction is substantive.
If one out of 5 acronym agencies is corrupt, that's a 20% corruption rate.
Now of course one incident doesn't prove a whole organization is bad. But it does show the processes used by that organization have insufficient oversight to prevent it.
Moreover, it's not simply one case. Yes, the comment brought up an isolated case, but there are many more known cases, and I'm curious how many unknown cases there are....
I feel like your arguments have been willfully oversimplifying and I question what your dog in this fight is.