Unfortunately not a good read...
No, it isn’t.
But apart from the spelling and grammatical errors which my 10yo son could proof-read, the Factual Summary specifically says the F/O was type rated on the aircraft (page 13) but then the preliminary findings says he wasn’t. Of course whether or not that could be a causal factor is not explored by the report.
But what the hell is a comment like this doing in the preliminary findings:
2.6 The Crew resource management (CRM) in the cockpit was found lacking
This statement is made as a “finding” with absolutely no supporting evidence or explanation!
This defies belief in an official report. It probably indicates which direction this investigation will follow.