I'd ignore it.
Maurer's test is a compression test. Does your file compress with pkzip, 7z or stronger stuff like PAQ8 or cmix? No? Does it pass ent (the most trustworthy test in my opinion)?
Most randomness tests return a p-value, which should be uniform on [0,1) if the input file contains truly independent random bits. Those p-values are obtained by p = F(X), where F is the assumed distribution of the sample random variable X – often normal. But that assumed F is just an asymptotic approximation, for which the fit will be worst in the tails.
I've had the same kind of failures when testing plain /dev/urandom. It's a fault with the test code. If you think about it, when runs = 0.122325, how can compression be = 0.000000? It's nonsensical.
A good example of this flaw is below (from the horse's mouth, NIST Special Publication 800-22). All evidence leads us to conclude that the digits of an expansion of a Normal number are randomly distributed. Thus mathematically, philosophically and ecumenically, $e$ cannot fail a randomness test. Yet NIST testing does...
The contradiction can only lie with the test, and not the subject. The truth points to itself. Doesn't mean that your encryption is secure though. That can only be determined via inspection.
