The CAB report doesn't just assert, it states, "Based on the Lockheed study, Board investigators prepared the estimated flghtpath chart."
It's absurd, therefore, to purport the chart contains flightpaths or an envelope that was not in the Lockheed study at all.
Or, put another way: you can't castigate the CAB for including too little data on one aspect of the accident, then turn around and second-guess - with no basis for it - their inclusion of what you seem to think is too much data on another aspect.
I'm cool with theorizing, but that's not theorizing, nor is it healthy skepticism. It's illogic and incomprehension to a ridiculous degree.