You quoted two paragraphs, none of which mentioned either Google missing backups, or unisupers account being deleted. I'm fact, what you quoted aligns perfectly with what I've been suggesting the whole time.
You're making a strong claim, I'm asking you to source it specifically. Instead you're taking a statement from which you can draw multiple conclusions, and picking one (that has been contradicted repeatedly) and telling me I'm unwilling to accept the facts. But they aren't facts, they're your interpretation of vague statements.
I'm happy to accept facts. Facts like "Data backups that were stored in Google Cloud Storage in the same region were not impacted by the deletion" are very easy to understand and difficult to misinterpret. Do you disagree?
“UniSuper had backups in place with an additional service provider. These backups have minimised data loss, and significantly improved the ability of UniSuper and Google Cloud to complete the restoration.”
Again, the same quote I already quoted above, direct from UniSuper’s website. They needed to use their backups at a different cloud provider, as GCP’s data wasn’t recoverable. I don’t know why you’re arguing so strongly against this.
That they used external backups doesn't actually imply anything about the GCS backups being unavailable. And Google's press release explicitly notes that unisuper used both. (And there's all kinds of reasons to have used both, both good and bad)
Put formally, we have statements that
- 1. A and B exist
- 2. A was used
- 3. A and B were used
Your conclusion from these statements is that, because (2) A was used, therefore B does not exist. Hopefully putting it like this makes it clear why I'm so confused.
