It does, but I wonder how much of that phrasing is cultural.

When working with different businesses across the globe, I’ve noticed Indian correspondence to incidents tends to be more a show of strength even if it’s transparently obvious that there’s no merit to the content.

Whereas western European correspondence is often more apologetic and empathetic. Even if it might sound insincere to those affected.

But it’s all just words at the end of the day. It never means much unless the business is willing to back real change to mitigate similar issues in the future and resolve undisclosed existing problems. However there’s no way for us to know if this is happening or not.

I don't know if it's really specific to one culture. Look at US companies after they go through a lengthy legal saga, it's obvious they screwed up, they're paying fines or having to adhere to court-imposed consequences. Their press releases:

"We admit no wrongdoing. We are only settling to move past this. Our business is strong/secure/competent."

It's like the first rule you learn when you go into corporate communications is to never admit you did anything wrong or project anything other than confidence and correctness.