It does however tell us that the "easy" steps are easy, which was never a foregone conclusion. The other steps will remain what they are. It doesn't mean the trend will continue.
I find it weird to use a deliberately rigged game as an example. If one of the previous letters was wrong, the last letter being right means you don't win either.
It's like saying the difficult steps are going to be extra difficult because other steps were found easier than expected.
The point is that if you have N independent boolean random variables X1 ... Xn, establishing a lower bound on the probability that some proper subset of the Xi are true doesn't provide any useful lower bound on the probability they all are true.
Sure, my point was only that if the lower bound on the subset is higher than anyone expected, that will increase the probability of them all being true compared to your prior belief. And it will also increase the probability that life is more common.
You could argue that the priors were garbage I suppose. I'm not arguing for any particular probability.
The McDonalds example does not have independent variables as X1..Xn-1 are deliberately increased as Xn is decreased.
I'd also argue that origin of life doesn't have independent variables. If chemistry turns out to be more or less powerful in one setting, it should do something for our assessment of other settings, especially when it's similar processes.
I find it weird to use a deliberately rigged game as an example. If one of the previous letters was wrong, the last letter being right means you don't win either. It's like saying the difficult steps are going to be extra difficult because other steps were found easier than expected.