Is there a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the prosecutor's remarks to mean the presumption of innocence is artificial?

" '[I]n the context of the whole argument and the instructions' " we do not find there was a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the prosecutor's remarks to mean the presumption of innocence is artificial. (See People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 667.) " '[W]e "do not lightly infer" that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements.' " (Ibid.) Instead, we find the prosecutor's statement merely commented on how the jury had been exposed to the presumption of innocence standard from the outset. Also, we do not lightly infer that the jury understood the prosecutor to be characterizing the presumption of innocence as fragile and easily disappearing because he chose to use the word "bubble." In the same sentence, the prosecutor also referred to the presumption as a "force field" and in the preceding sentence he described it as "protect[ing] every one of us."