None of the reports suggested that the crew made errors in handling the plane after they elected to continue the takeoff after the first warnings.
None of the reports suggest that handling the situation different after they decided to continue would have changed the outcome.
So the only possible difference in the outcome could have been from two earlier points.
They elected to continue the take off after the bells went off, after V1 complying with SOP.
They elected to start the TO with 8kts tailwind, and questionable M/B numbers.
If they had rejected after V1 there is a chance more people would have survived, but it would have been the wrong decision as far as operating procedures, based on the information the pilots had.
If they had delayed the T/O, in all probability the same thing could have happened, and if it hadn't because they didn't hit the piece of metal it would not have prevented the crash for the right reasons.
That 25 year old airplane had less time in the air than the crew had on average, and the entire fleet had only around 300.000 hours in 25 years with 14 airframes. From inception till 2013 the 737 fleet flew over 250 million hours, and 1 crash per week over 40 years would have been equivalent in safety. The concord was an anomaly from the start.