authorial habits and evidence in Textual Criticism

The following quote is from a Nov 30, 2010 blog post by Kevin  Who Saved the People Out of Egypt: Ιησους or Κυριος which gives an accounting of the text critical issues in regard to Jude 5:

Charles Landon favored κυριος in his monograph on Jude from a rigorous eclectic method.[10]  ...  One reason as to why Landon believes κυριος to be original is that the author of Jude never uses ιησους as a stand alone name but always adds χριστος and/or κυριος to it (see vv. 1, 4, 17, 21, 25).

 10. Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. (pp. 70-75)

“Jude never uses ιησους as a stand alone …” Every time I read a an statement like this[1], which is far too often, I wonder about it. Jude is a small text. How can we talk about authorial habits based on such a small sample? Here is an example of the author breaking the normal pattern which authors do all the time, break patterns that is.  Michael W. Holmes seems to have found this and other arguments unpersuasive. Here is the text from  Michael W. Holmes SBLGNT with the apparatus:

Jude 1:5 Υπομνησαι δε υμας βουλομαι, ειδοτας ⸂υμας απαξ⸃ ⸀παντα, οτι ⸀Ιησους λαον εκ γης Αιγυπτου σωσας το δευτερον τους μη πιστευσαντας απωλεσεν,

Jude 1:5
— υμας απαξ RP ] απαξ υμας NIV; απαξ WH Treg; υμας NA
— παντα WH Treg NIV ] τουτο RP
— Ιησους Holmes WHmarg ] κυριος WH Treg; ο κυριος NIV RP; ο κυριος απαξ NA


 [1] Landon's appealing to authorial habits as evidence is the point of criticism here not Kevin's post which was well written.