IMHO this is a load of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. A lot of people have had some nice jollies but there is scant medical research or relevant data attached. The proposal is more 'projects' but any statistician will point out the numbers involved to power such studies looking at pilots as opposed to the general population would take decades to achieve.
Good data does exist, such as that submitted into court for Ian Evans' tribunal (which was in turn argued over by Council), demonstrating the incidence of sudden incapacitation with age and comparing it with the risk 10, 20 and 30 years ago. That is all that is needed, because the decision should only be made on safety, not on the basis of the shortage of pilots or other pension rules
. IF it was safe for a 59 year old to have an unrestricted medical in 1970, what age could we increase the limit to today for the same level of risk? The answer is in the low to mid 70s.
Instead this report and the accompanying mass of presentations looks at life expectancy and the number of temporary disqualifications. Obviously both are correlated as they demonstrate improving health, but neither are relevant to sudden incapacitation. It then suggests a 'battery' of tests which is typical EASA nonsense as there are no tests which we can add that reliably predict sudden incapacitation.