Ironically enough, that's somewhat part of their point. They're lightly mocking the parent poster who wants to erroneously correlate human intuition on what "looks" or "feels like" the obvious problem despite it having no relation to the outcome. There's absolutely no solid conclusion anyone can draw from their story about why they called for the car wash vs the expensive tv, but they wanted to pretend that it's a clear sign of fault in their fraud detection system versus any plausible explanation. I could very easily craft a narrative to flip your expectation of what should be the 'right' outcome, and in the end it's still completely irrelevant to the topic of security.

Which is to say, if someone used a random number generator and received 12345 and then huffed online about how it isn't generating 'real' random numbers in a security thread, you would be right to second guess anything they had to say if they start with an immediately false premise.