In the nature of a question, mostly (with a reason for considering it relevant, also...)
Does a particular item in the news reports today provide a basis for further considering how plausible, or rather how quite suspicious, Iranian explanations about missile crew mistakes really are? Not going to summarize the specific steps or subroutines involved in the specific missile launches or in operation of the air defense battery in general, given these parts of the Iranian storyline are found easily and readily enough.
But in the news today, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have reached enough of a framework agreement so that the Kingdom has reopened its borders which of course includes airspace, to Qatar, and hence to overflights by Qatar Airways. As the WSJ news article notes, the airline had been overflying Iran during the closure, which had generated additional airspace usage fees for Iran. A factor which should have been of obvious relevance already (although your friendly neighborhood SLF/atty poster just plain missed). So the question is:
In the situation during the closure of Saudi airspace to Qatar Airways, with the airline instead overflying Iran and doing so to the financial benefit of Iran, does it not register as plausible that the Iranian missile crews would have been more diligent and more vigilant, more closely overseen and supervised, more fear of supreme authority put into them, so that any possible mistake would not tragically down a Qatar flight? It's not the revenue here that is the hook, it's the fact that the overflights would appear to have been a reason for significantly greater oversight and vigilance, not less and not even just business as usual.
The reason I'm kicking this out at this moment is not that I got an "F" on my most recent Iranian geography quiz. Instead, it's that the Canadian government's diplomatic efforts in the aftermath of this tragedy are being taken quite seriously by the participants not only from Canada but from the other Member States as well...yes, I realize, what really can be done? and there have been shoot-downs before, et et etcetera. The point is, my sources say that despite those "so what?" factors the diplomats and government officials involved are taking the current initiative seriously. And that as a result, having a proper frame of reference around the ".....oh, the missile crews, they tried to operate this complicated gear properly but were fallible" storyline is important. Isn't it important?