Forget the pixel method, Old Akro, I suggest it would be too erroneous. Just look at the impact marks diagram and associated analysis.
Firstly, the ATSB rely heavily on the pixel method. It is the prime basis on which they argue that the aircraft was in a slideslip that caused reduced performance. Note, that the ATSB failed to investigate if the aircraft would climb in this configuration. Its speculation that it wouldn't.
Secondly, I'm not completely won over by the roof marks because a) from the time any part f the aircraft touched the roof, the path of the aircraft would have become violent and not fully predictable. The first part of the aircraft contacting would create yaw in itself. b) the propellor marks aren't fully consistent with the aircraft position they have outlined. I think the slash marks look like they are made with less aircraft yaw.
I think the work they did here was interesting, its just not intellectually rigorous enough to base their conclusion upon.
Regarding the pilots "leg giving out" you and I are just going to disagree. My reading is that the SIM pilot said that the rudder force was manageable at the airspeeds that the accident aircraft was flying. The sadness is that the ATSB didn't undertake the SIM exercise diligently. It should have replicated the incident aircraft's flight condition. In which case we wouldn't be debating the implications of comma's.