Do they purport to be a scientific report?
They used to purport to be a report of the outcomes of a scientific process. Jumping to a convenient or comfortable conclusion then finding “facts” to “support” that conclusion is not a scientific process. (I can show you reports with “data” that “support” the conclusion that white people are smarter than black people.)
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.
Yeah - like the “background investigation” of the Whyalla Airlines Navajo that was based on old wives’ tales about piston engines and presented data that was hogwash. Many, many like that since then.
At least back then it was just structural incompetence. Now it’s special interest interference as well. So many people providing “data” to “support” a conclusion that happens to be convenient and comfortable for them. Everyone, that is, but the deceased pilot.
If there is litigation in the wake of the Essendon tragedy, it will be interesting to see what a rigorous fact-finding process and causal analysis turns up.