No, I'm just saying that as a general matter of reasoned analysis, you cannot use a mere three examples of anything as proof of a pattern. If you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times, that doesn't mean it's rigged, because that could easily happen by random chance. You'd need a much larger sample size before you could draw any conclusions. I'm not making a point about imaginary teleportation technology, I'm making a point about statistics and how we use it to assess knowledge.
What you are making is a straw-man.
Three cases of a complex technology working flawlessly means:
-it is highly likely the technology works
-it is highly unlikely the technology does not work and you have won the lottery three times (a LOT of things have to happen just right for complex technology to work flawlessly even once)
All I'm trying to do here is to establish what we don't know, what we can't and shouldn't assume we know for sure. We can't be certain that subspace beaming is different from transwarp beaming. We can't be certain that transwarp beaming is reliable. Maybe those things are true, but we just don't know for sure. There are still major uncertainties, and I'm just trying to define those areas of doubt.
We can be sure transwarp beaming is at least moderately reliable. Subspace beaming as well (whether they are the same or different).