Again you don't know that. You're speculating. When a failure occurs, often it may be an unusual event, such as a manufacturing defect, and may require a one-time inspection with no change in interval. It may turn out to be a crack that was part of an existing program and may not require additional inspections in the fleet, or type.
Increasing inspection intervals does not equate to mean time between failures, particularly if the interval is not related to a failure mode. Your commentary assumes that all intervals are associated with failures, or expectation of a failure. Many inspection intervals are checks for function, tolerance checks, etc; they may have to do with wear limits, serviceability, pre-programmed intervals associated with a life-limited component, or any number of other rationale. Increasing the interval between inspections or service assigned to an airframe, engine, component, or appliance does not mean a greater possibility of a failure, even an "outlier." If we leave a pencil on a shelf that's due to be inspected yearly, and don't touch that pencil but find that it can be inspected every two years of sitting on the shelf, we haven't moved any closer to a failure.
Specifically, mean time between failures (MTBF) is NOT the same as inspection interval, service interval, overhaul interval, or any other interval. Some components have no MTBF. Some simply have life limits. Some work on life extension because initial numbers have proven conservative and inspections are unwarranted. If a component exists which does not have a failure, for which an inspection interval is gradually increased over a given period by virtue of ongoing inspections and gathered data. so long as that item does not have a failure, it does not have a mean time between failures; as no failure interval has been established.
When service difficulty reports and other reporting media establish evidence of a crack or wear or other problems, and these problems have commonality, there may be cause for the establishment of one-time inspections, repetitive inspections, component changes or upgrades or replacement, or modifications such as coatings, changes in material, reinforcements, or other actions. Manufacturer service bulletins are often issued, as well as mandatory regulatory actions such as airworthiness directives. These, in turn, may be one-time actions, or may serve to change intervals, establish new inspections, or other actions such as operational limitations.
The suggestion that increasing an inspection interval equates to a greater chance of component failure is a fallacy.