I don’t disagree with your point Two’s In but would add that you really only address the first of three criteria present that make this an accident; that of the lost aeroplane (neither here nor there really IMHO for the reason you state and with which I agree). The second would be the pilot’s unfortunate broken leg (possible learning point for ejecting in time but at the end of the day he ejected in time). The third is the tragic fatality - and I know we all know that - but that puts the board in the position of having to look at why the deceased was where he was/ doing what he was - and whether either or both were a bright idea etc.
Reserving my opinion on the above - I always feel that HF likes to ‘talk a good game’ in lectures and courses but stay on safe middle ground when it comes to reports. Hence you get ‘fatigue and distraction’ in reports but not the variety of biases that may have occurred - which spawns the inevitable ‘why didn’t the board look at’ questions. The answer is probably that they did but weren’t allowed to publish anything likely to be challenged even if only put forward as a possibility.