Heya Lanie,
Sorry to take a year on to approve this comment, but it was lost in a spam oubliette for some reason. Anyhow, no, they never did address remedies—few folks do, though. And yes, of course it’s about re-establishing trust—but there are some pretty tried and true routines that help get that back, and going through the basics of a good apology help. Well, assuming it’s not the first time you’ve made that particular mistake.

I can see how point #4 could take longer than points #1 – #3. In order to make a convincing presentation of how they are going to prevent this in the future (i.e., something better than “We promise this won’t happen again!”), they would have to spend some time discussing how it happened in the first place, who makes what decisions, the existing process of review and how it was insufficient, and so forth.

So in the meantime, they had a choice between (1) saying nothing at all while they do that, and (2) getting something out quickly.

Neither solution is perfect: the first option would have drawn ire (“Omg they’re refusing to address it!”), and the second option drew the ire it actually drew.

My own observations about apologies is that while some are certainly better than others, vanishingly few of them are fully satisfactory to the people calling for the apology. I suspect that if or when they address point #4, it will be received in a manner that boils down to “Well…we’ll see what happens.”

Apologies are tricky – so is accepting apologies. As you point out, the fact that something happened in the first place means that trust has been damaged. The best repair for that is establishing a track record of trustworthiness from a new, post-offense starting line. That obviously takes just plain old time.