Okay, let's play peon. Here are three perfectly legal and work-safe thumbnails of a famous singer:
https://imgur.com/a/j40fMex. The singer is underage in precisely one of the three photos. Can you decide which one?
If your account has a large number of safety vouchers that trigger a CSAM match, then Apple will gather enough fragments to reassemble a secret key X (unique to your device) which they can use to decrypt the "visual derivatives" (very low resolution thumbnails) stored in all your matched safety vouchers.
An Apple employee looks at the thumbnails derived from your photos. The only judgment call this employee gets to make is whether it can be ruled out (based on the way the thumbnail looks) that your uploaded photo is CSAM-related. As long as the thumbnail contains a person, or something that looks like the depiction of a person (especially in a vaguely violent or vaguely sexual context, e.g. with nude skin or skin with injuries) they will not be able to rule out this possibility based on the thumbnail alone. And they will not have access to anything else.
Given the ability to produce hash collisions, an adversary can easily generate photos that fail this visual inspection as well. This can be accomplished straightforwardly by using perfectly legal violent or sexual material to produce the collision (e.g. most people would not suspect foul play if they got a photo of genitals from their Tinder date). But much more sophisticated attacks [2] are also possible: since the computation of the visual derivative happens on the client, an adversary will be able to reverse engineer the precise algorithm.
While 30 matching hashes are probably not sufficient to convict somebody, they're more than sufficient to make somebody a suspect. Reasonable suspicion is enough to get a warrant, which means search and seizure, computer equipment hauled away and subjected to forensic analysis, etc. If a victim works with children, they'll be fired for sure. And if they do charge somebody, it will be in Apple's very best interest not to assist the victim in any way: that would require admitting to faults in a high profile algorithm whose mere existence was responsible for significant negative publicity. In an absurdly unlucky case, the jury may even interpret "1 in 1 trillion chance of false positive" as "way beyond reasonable doubt".
Chances are the FBI won't have the time to go after every report. But an attack may have consequences even if it never gets to the "warrant/charge/conviction" stage. E.g. if a victim ever gets a job where they need to obtain a security clearance, the Background Investigation Process will reveal their "digital footprint", almost certainly including the fact that the FBI got a CyberTipline Report about them. That will prevent them from being granted interim determination, and will probably lead to them being denied a security clearance.
(See also my FAQ from the last thread [1], and an explanation of the algorithm [3])
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28232625
[2] https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/106260/ima...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28231218