I still don't think that's accurate. Bugs in software can take literally any shape. I think it's accurate to say hidden amounts make it more difficult to detect inflation bugs if they exist. That's a fair statement.

Fair! I'm happy to disagree with you on that one point. I don't think the point you're making is wrong either, it souns solid to me. Just have a different opinion on what is more/less probable

Here I will say that I can't think of a way for hidden inflation to happen on Bitcoin even theoretically. If you eliminate the linkable transaction graph, but kept plaintext amounts, then I can see how it's possible. So plaintext amounts + linkable transaction graph (everyone can see which inputs are destroyed in every transaction and which outputs are produced) = no theoretical hidden inflation. And that's Bitcoin. That being said.. I think that can lead to a false sense of security. There are plenty of theoretical devastating inflation bugs or implementation bugs that would destroy Bitcoin (or Monero). Like broken cryptography that could allow anyone to steal people's Bitcoin. I think it's definitely fair and valid to say Monero has a wider surface for these sorts of bugs (including hidden inflation which I can't see how Bitcoin could have), and therefore assign it a higher probability of occurring than Bitcoin. I agree with that.