Advancement on failed survival roll?


I seem to think I’ve seen the answer to this question before, but I can’t seem to find the answer currently.

If a person does not survive, but are not ejected from the career (in this specific example, the improper cryogenic freezing mishap from the Navy career), do they continue the process for possible advancement? I tried to look it up, and don’t see anything in the book that says that you don’t but I do understand that this could be the implication, because you wouldn’t normally roll for advancement if you fail your survival roll.
I'm not sure if it says it explicitly but failing your survival roll functionally ends your term once you resolve the failure result. You might not be kicked out of the service and able to continue with future terms, but that term is over.
This specific result does not eject you from the career, but I could see that it immediately ends the term, thus no advancement roll. But I couldn’t find anywhere that said that specifically, which led to my confusion.
The char-gen flow chart on page 10 says
Roll for mishap and leave career unless otherwise stated, in which case Start New Term
...and the arrows and boxes around that text take you back to "if ... basic training, otherwise choose a skill table and roll." Which is to say you don't roll for advancement*. Maximum clarity might have inserted a dash or something in between "career" and "unless", but it still seems pretty clear.

*Or even Event, which is almost as harsh, but seems to be RAW.
Yeah, one annoying thing about MgT2e is that a lot of rules are in the flowchart and not in the descriptions of the process. It's always my first reaction to read the text not look at the quick reference chart.
In a general way that's been a thing in both 1e and 2e, that not everything is written out in full every single time its mentioned in passing, the way some other modern rule sets do.

In itself, once I know the system, I kind of like it. Its got brevity, and avoids the legalistic and almost condescending tone of a few modern rule books.

I strongly suspect I'm in a minority on this though. And the tradeoff is clear, it can be harder to learn if you don't sit down and read the book in full before jumping into character creation and game play.

And its especially dangerous when you get a player with an a priori assumption that legalistic and repeated in full every time is the only way to write. I circled the drain once with a prospective player during character creation years ago for this reason. He was asking what began as fair and reasonable questions about how things worked, which I was answering off the cuff because they were things I had already looked up from the first game I played in, but then he was arguing and rules lawyering from whatever specific text he was looking at, and didn't want to hear that the answer was elsewhere. And I didn't flip on anything because I was both correct on RAW and happened to be okay with RAW, and we ended up not gaming together.

In that particular case I was okay screening him out, but its still a thing.