I think the misleading part was representing it as that person specifically had 90% chances, even though 90% may be aggregated probability and this person's cha

I think the misleading part was representing it as that person specifically had 90% chances, even though 90% may be aggregated probability and this person's chances based on personal history may be much lower. Given CK does have access to personal history, one might easily get an impression that the prediction is a precise calculation based on it and thus imply more accuracy than warranted.