The statement in the Spergel et al. "Implications for Cosmology" paper:
gives the impression at first sight of almost being in a state of denial!If we were eager to claim evidence of strong non-Gaussianity, we could quote the probability of this occurring randomly as less than 2%. We, however, do not interpret the improvement of χ2 = 8 with 8 additional parameters as evidence against the hypothesis that the primordial fluctuations are Gaussian. Since the existence of non-Gaussian features in the CMB would require dramatic reinterpretation of our theories of primordial fluctuations, more compelling evidence is required.
Seriously, the desire to lessen the chance of a false positive, the statement that the AoE exists when in fact it does not, leads inevitably to the greater chance of a false negative, the statement that the AoE does not exist when in fact it does.
How much "more compelling evidence" will be required?
Garth