It's Not All Just Rumour
alf5071h, disclaimers first. As SLF (and worse, attorney) and a decade less time on the forum, perhaps I should call this post off. But understanding the near-future changes percolating into the aviation safety ecosystem is a professional (and academic) interest, so here it goes.
Last item you linked is about 15 pages, heavily referenced (though not with notes), 2007 (Errors and Failures: Towards a New Safety Paradigm - Journal of Risk Research); second to last item is about 8 pages, heavily footnoted (Errors in Aviation Decision-Making: A Factor in Accidents and Incidents), by NASA Ames authors 1998. Perhaps some forum members have familiarity with these works but I'll safely presume they're for members' learning and mind-expansion. In other words, I don't speed read, not scholarly stuff like those.
Without intending to exaggerate for effect, your overall point appears to be, "it's all relative". Which is different from saying, "it's all relevant." I think the second version is what you actually mean - but your posts proceed into what reads like a theoretical direction. That discourse and information is highly important and useful, to be sure but.....in a given accident situation, is it not more important, and by far, to unearth the facts as cold hard realities first? Again it's perhaps an attorney's mindset, but there is little if anything theoretical about facts.
Not long ago I attended a presentation by NTSB Chairman Sumwalt about aviation safety and how the system, in the U.S. anyway, moves forward and doesn't move forward. Someone asked a question* about the need for better regulatory rules about pilot duty time and commuting time and fatigue issues. "We've already had that accident - Colgan Air" or words to that effect, the Board Chairman responded. There wasn't any room or space in that answer, in my understanding, for theoretical factors. It was about facts, lessons extracted, and what can be done to help solve or reduce the problem going forward. I don't pretend to know what, exactly, the proper place is for matters of theoretical content, but I do contend that deploying such matters as a kind of interference to traditional and customary accident investigation, causal analysis and safety recommendations is not the proper place.
(*SLF that I am, I did ask a question, but the one referenced was not mine.)