Yes, a lot of modern engineering is good enough that single-cause failures are very rare indeed. That means that failures themselves are rare, but when they do happen, they're most likely to have multiple causes.

How to explain that to non-engineers is another problem.

Frequently, when you see these massive failures, the root cause is an alignment of small weaknesses that all come together on a specific day. See, for instance, the space shuttle O-ring incident, Three-Mile Island, Fukushima, etc. These are complex systems with lots of moving parts and lots of (sometimes independent) people managing them. In a sense, the complexity it the common root cause.

It is very carefully worded, but variable renewables are holding the smoking gun here. This is why spain now requests a better connection to french nuclear now. This reckless overbuild of variable generation is a valuable negative example, wind and solar without adequate hydro or nuclear is dead

Yep, sounds like "This was bound to happen at some point"

There are ways to aggregate these into a single resilience score for policy makers with only moderate loss of detail but it's unpopular.

They need more battery storage for grid health, both colocated at solar PV generators (to buffer voltage and frequency anomalies) and spread throughout the grid. This replaces inertia and other grid services provided by spinning thermal generators. There was no market mechanism to encourage the deployment of this technology in concert with Spain’s rapid deployment of solar and wind.