Re the HS748: although the CAA thought the decision "sensible" they also commented "that there was no reason to abort the takeoff" (para 2.1.1) Had they continued and completed the drills correctly (including the LP cock), there is every chance the fire would have been extinguished notwithstanding the issue with the number 2 shot for that engine. The crew denied themselves the opportunity to carry out the drills in a timely manner. As it was, it was a happy ending but with a hull loss. It could have been worse - they had good fortune on their side.
kitchen bench, to be fair the report states at 2.1.2 that he made the reject decision based on his fear of the aircraft's structural integrity. What may have given him that impression the report doesn't elucidate, although the report tells of a previous catastrophic accident due to a similar failure, was this in the Captains mind? The report also states that it was not possible to categorically state the outcome had they continued with a circuit, it does comment that significant structural fire damage could have resulted. Place your bets, red or black, abort or go. Everyone walked away, job done.
Remember a DC-9 that aborted on the eastern runway Hobart, nose hanging over the strip end but nose wheel still on the tarmac, had to be pushed back in order to turn it around. Friend safely aborted a RAAF C-130 in Darwin above refusal speed (V1) after multiple bird strikes, his thinking I assume may have been a lesson from the fatal Electra crash (Eastern Air Lines Flight 375) in the USA that was brought down by starlings they had hit six seconds after lift off, initially No 1 autofeathered, No 2 flamed out, partial power loss on No 4.