score:2
It doesn't affect it at all. Inerrancy and infallibility are only attributed to the original autographs. It's not applied to translations, copies (even early ones) or modern versions. If it were applicable to translations then we'd have a bigger problem in the Wicked Bible.
The belief that we can't reproduce an original autograph doesn't mean there was no initial autograph. And it was only the initial autograph that is inerrant, doctrinally speaking.
Along with this, the Reliability of the translations, meaning we believe they are accurate enough to be trusted as doctrinal sources, is still defensible via manuscript evidence, so there is still no problem.
We have always accepted flaws in modern versions, and even the idea that our oldest known manuscripts are not likely perfect reproductions of the original manuscripts. However, since we can reasonably reconstruct enough to understand the meaning, minor flaws in modern versions are inconsequential.
It's only the straw-man version of infallibility - the one that claims we think modern translations (or even old copies of the original manuscripts like the Textus Receptus) are inerrant - that is knocked down by this method of textual criticism.