The following statements are unassailably correct, FMJ:
The absence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of an absence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of pilots attempting to deploy the chute but it failing to deploy properly or at all.
Equally, the presence of a deployed chute is not conclusive of the presence of attempts to deploy it. There are documented instances of the chute deploying without human intervention.
I’ll add another couple:
The absence of receipt by ATC of a mayday call is not conclusive of an absence of a pilot’s attempts to make one.
The existence of a Service Bulletin is not conclusive of the carrying out of the SB, competently or at all, in the case of a particular aircraft the subject of the SB.
You can of course keep expressing opinions about the probabilities of various circumstances, but if you want to argue the correctness of the above statements you’re merely reinforcing how biased your agenda is.
On the subject of SBs, you are of course aware that there is no regulatory requirement to comply with an SB unless it is made the subject of an AD by an NAA (in this case CASA or the FAA) or the particular aircraft has an approved system of maintenance which mandates compliance with SBs. Please identify the AD issued by CASA or the FAA mandating compliance with the SB to which you referred, or quote the provision of the approved system of maintenance for MSF which mandates compliance with SBs.
Even if there is an AD mandating compliance with the SB, or there is an approved system of maintenance mandating compliance with SBs or the aircraft owner chose to comply with all SBs, that is not conclusive of the carrying out of any SB, competently or at all, in the case of MSF. And that is an unassailably correct statement.
That is why accident investigators look into the actual maintenance history of an aircraft involved in an incident and in some cases speak to the people responsible for actually carrying out the maintenance.