Any assumption that the following is relevant is certainly as baselessly speculative as anything else at this point, but I've always been uncomfortable with many SIG and similar striker blocks which intercept the body of the striker behind the shoulder upon which the striker spring acts or intercept the striker hook or a section behind any thinner area-- essentially anything which is both relatively more likely to fail in the event of a material defect AND in the event of failure would allow the spring to drive the tip forward unimpeded into the primer. I have much more faith in Glock, PPQ, and similar blocker placement ahead of the sprung structure of the striker, especially blockers which receive a partially oblique impact vector to disburse some force to surfaces of the blocker channel on the same horizontal plane as the striker's point of contact, wedging blocker material in the striker's path and distributing the impact through more linearly supported mass.
I'm not assuming this striker randomly broke forward of any safety retention, let alone under static tension which would be extremely surprising, just saying generally, especially given the record of poor metallurgy in SIG FCG components, that I find the shape of the striker and placement of the blocker not to be terribly comforting as an appendix carrier.