George Glass
Same here but do you practice an “unsafe or unable to fly” level defect being introduced at that point, such that you would crash if an attempt to fly was made? I suspect MCs, etc. are used more to reinforce the idea of continuing than to introduce doubt about whether you should? This is normal practice as on 99.99% of occasions it is the correct course of action but Boeing wouldn’t have included the above phrase in the QRH/FCTM if they didn’t think it might be needed at some point.
In the incident under discussion, it’s not clear precisely when the warning occurred but the RTO was initiated 3sec/10kts after V1. Given the startle effect, that would indicate that the warning was somewhere close to V1 but could have been either side of it. There is no information as to whether the PF had removed their hand or not at V1 - they might have done but put them back to initiate the stop.
It’s not textbook handling by any means but it’s not a textbook airfield or terrain, weather, density altitude, problem, etc. Compared to crossing the threshold at 200kts and trying to land half way down a wet runway with a tailwind, it seems they might have been a little unfortunate in the timing of the warning as the realisation, decision and initial actions were clustered around V1?