No, I think it just means that they built a more compact gearbox which gave them room to modify the geometry of the rear suspension.

No, it is that they are trying to improve their race pace without losing their qualification pace.

AlanD, how then, when things are brought to me very serious, do I make the decision on which things to take seriously and which things not?

With all relevant scientists present, John explained to us: "We found the earth isn't round or flat, it's a cube."

I expect people that explain things to the press to be exact in their words, and I expect them to realise who they are talking to, and certainly when that's the press, that their words will be scrutinised. Especially where fields such as tech, legal, etc. are involved. When these people do not realise this, I'd say they're unfit for the job to talk about it.
I'll take them seriously, as I'm sure they'll be wanting -and expecting- me to take them serious.

Likewise, when the press uses quotes and specifically writes them down as such (He said: "Always") I expect it to be exactly what that person said. If we can't rely on that anymore we have a big problem.
Again, the press most likely wants me to take them seriously, and I will, until they prove they're not worth it, or unless they specifically indicate they're not.

John wasn't serious about the earth's shape, by the way.
But if I hadn't told you that here explicitly, you'd have no way to decide whether John himself would want you to take it seriously or not.

It's not a stretch from my side, thank you.
I just -literally- read what's -literally- being said.

The disclaimer I already used was 'if his english is correct'. (While that should actually not even be my problem; you choose to speak english, you make sure to use it correctly, especially in a technical environment.)
This only shows how important it is to say and write things correctly; to prevent misunderstanding, speculation and controversy. Looking at you too, FiA.

Lastly, I ended -and worded- with questions, not conclusions.

Let's just hope you're right though, I not waiting for yet another row in F1. But they were his exact words.

Is the answer that everyone at Ferrari only listens to themselves and blames everyone else when stuff goes wrong?

If Ferrari want to beat the red bull they will have to have better overall race pace, which means their tire 'issues' and floor need to be better placed for this year. However RBR was able to destroy just about every other team down the straight last year, I highly suspect that this will be remedied by being able to consistently push RBR off their optimization curve, and cause them to have to save more fuel and watch RBR's race pace drop off the map when it is forced to sit behind a faster Ferrari later in a stint. How RBR is able to go faster than every other car down the straight last year, despite appearing a larger car is pretty interesting, kinda like watching the Porsche in WEC blitzing the Audi some years ago. I suspect some of that has to do with their work with Porsche and the McHonda's misfiring system which ensures more weight on the rear right before the apex of the turn.

You really shouldn't take things literally. Even when someone is speaking in their own language, they are trying to respond off-the-cuff to questions from journalists and they don't necessarily use precisely the right words, and don't realise that what they have said could be interpreted in more than one way, and when the things they said are first being interpeted by a journalist (not a lawyer) and then going through a translator into English, the nuances of what they said are often completely lost.

Coventry Climax raised a good question, Biskit Boy helped me see that there is a more rational explanation. But as with so many conspiracy theories, people seem to think there is an elaborate secret plan and yet someone forgets and blurts out the secret to the media.

MichaelN
Ferrari has reduced the length of the gearbox by circa 5cm, resulting in significant changes to the suspension geometry and the overall weight distribution.

there’s a different way to manage the inboard suspension

Its now

Inside the gearbox

Different then last year.

This seems like a huge stretch. An active suspension is not something you can just 'hide' behind a bit of bodywork. It'd be super obvious that they were running one from the first video footage of the car at speed.

As it says in the preceding paragraph, Cardile is talking about the suspension geometry, and how it's "differently located”. The changes to the gearbox allowed them to reconfigure the layout and to make all the pieces fit in a new way.

You could be right, but I just read it as the gearbox internals are different which means a different gearbox shape, which means different options for the suspension arrangement. When he says "manage" I think he means "configure".
Your interpretation is more exciting!

“Inside the gearbox is also a different concept which for us has been an innovation because there’s a different way to manage the inboard suspension compared to what we did in the past.”

That's an interesting thing he says there. Provided his english is correct it 'translates' to:
They manage their suspension - and did in the past as well - on the inboard side through some concept inside the gearbox.

With all the electronics going on, you could argue that somewhere along the drive train, their suspension is electronically managed, which is forbidden as far as I'm aware, as 'active suspension'.
As much of it is also about aero, you could even argue it's active aero, which is, apart from DRS, also forbidden.

Is it something the other teams do as well?
Is this yet another grey area, open for interpretation and opinion, in the FiA's wording of the rules?