Fris - look. No one familiar with South African aviation authorities would assume to get a competent first report these days. It happens, but less and less often. I fully expect the final report to be much more professional. Politics, unfortunately.
I don't think anyone here is really over-exercised about the paperwork - licenses, validations, certificates... we know these guys could fly the plane, and we know they know that their careers depend on them following the rules of Air Law.
I doubt anyone really doubts the capability, experience and airmanship of the flight deck team.
Pretty much everyone here understands that old machines break more often than new ones, and that when they break, the safety systems in place to mitigate consequences are generally not as good as modern safety systems.
There's really only one major bone of contention left - what on earth did they think they were doing taking passengers on that flight? First flight out of major overhaul, challenging density altitude (for the type), unfamiliar ground... Honestly. I wouldn't take passengers in my car, in the equivalent circumstances.
That, sadly, is the decision upon which the case for the defence falls apart. Everything else is irrelevant, or a distraction.