The most fundamental tenant of a scientific report is that a peer reviewer should be able to pick up a report and using the tabled data and / or details of methodology used, work through the report and reach the same conclusions. Currently, the ATSB reports fail this test. In recent years that have adopted the practice of only presenting the data that supports the conclusion of the report. The 2005 report on VH-OAO is a good demonstration. The OAO report tabled all the flight path data of all aircraft involved, not selected flight data of only the subject aircraft.
Do they purport to be a scientific report? I would have thought that the background investigation leads to a conclusion, then a report is prepared that states that conclusion and presents the data that leads to that conclusion. They are not presenting or initiating a debate. That has already happened. The OAO report tabled the flight path data of the other aircraft because it supported the conclusion, and was relevant. I would say that only the flight data of OWN was shown as it is the only one relevant. No other pilot on the day reported issues with their GPS or wandered about the sky trying to conduct an approach.