Nemrod:
I am not entering into the philosophy question about regulator hose length arrangements but I like munitur' fault tree idea--please do that but where will you get non antedotal data?
The objective is to see if there are big differences, not small ones. From a risk engineering perspective, the differences between different brands of piston regulator are insignificant and from experience I can tell you that testing interval has more effect on short term reliability than anything else. Most people know this intuitively. After all, if you just thouroughly checked its operation, how likely is it to fail in the next 60 minutes?
What I will do is try to get some industry failure rates for comparable bits of kit and use some harsh grading to find big differences. That means looking at the worst possible typical combination (which is probably no pony, two 2nds off a single 1st, k valve, 1 SPG, no pre-dive function check) and best combo (which I won't know until I finish digging up the base data, but obviously includes pre-dive function checking, DIN valve, etc), then looking at the differences. I have the incident rates for diving pretty well pegged so I have base risk rates. I can then estimate failure rates, use the error rates for humans under pressure, and take a look at the numbers.
If the differences in rig reliability are lost in the noise, or can be mitigated by pre-dive checking to the point of insignificance, then it tells me all that needs to be known. If the differences are significant, then I can take a swipe at what the "safest" rig is likely to be, including emergency response. And no, I'm not doing doubles. I just want to know what the best setup for the typical one tank diver looks like, including whether better pre-dive checks are called for.
Just as a data point, did you know that crash rates on engine failure for double engined private planes are four times those for single engine? Reason: time critical task overload. Something to think about.