You are not listening, that's what disappoints me (
also underestimating my imagination about the case studies, a little 
) . It is not the airlines, it is the law. The Airlines OTOH put protocols and more restrictive rules forward, exactly in the direction you guys are thinking.
You are right about pinteam's case, I mixed that up.
The "info only" is an agreed dinousaur and is specifically prohibited with many airlines on the EU side. It carries no meaning, once a record is done it becomes an issue to be solved. Pilots have no say how to interpret an failure, the authorized Maintrol shift leader does. I assume in your case the "for info" has an explicit definition somewhere in the Continued Airworthiness QA manuals, hence you can use it. No surprise, there is a reason why the good US airlines on average are ahead of the world.
Let's not fight in close quarters. What is the broader perspective?
- everyone has the same goal, only getting airborne with an airworthy aircraft that you trust and that includes neat and proper paperwork trail
- everyone is trying to do their honest best, playing the cards at hand and following the rules
- but we are not walking on the same path towards that goal.
This thread is about discussing what type of gear either of the parties carry on their trail. You mentioned the US being viewed as
cowboys, the look from the opposite direction look is
EU formalists. Guess what, I think this is bloody relevant - dare to read my mind with more success this time?