Absolutely? Bzzzt. Nope. That hasn't been proven or known for a fact. While both the division that tests before each event and the division that tests once a year have had no catastrophic mask failures to date, it's unknown which of the two is more likely to ever have a catastrophic mask failure. It may turn out to be that the frequent testing division is more likely to have such a failure. Or not. But there are lots of examples of fields where testing (or maintenance) in fact induced more reliability issues than would have occurred if the testing weren't done ... For awhile NASA stopped full testing the Space Shuttle's external tank before missions because they realized the existing testing process was actually adding to the risk, not reducing it. Or there's the research exploring whether apnea testing for the determination of clinical brain death may actually induce rather than just diagnose death. (Oops). There lots of similar examples in the electronics industry where some types of testing have eventually been found to do more harm than good. As Peter pointed out earlier, the side effects of correct and incorrect mask testing are not clearly understood. So the correct answer to "Question 1: are events in this other division less likely to have a catastrophic mask failure?" is "We don't know"