It's always interesting when you – very unusually – make categorical statements, Mick. “Not a scintilla of evidence”? “Most assuredly not under any normal meaning”? It's not your style and I'm yet to work out the 'trigger'.
You say “there is not a scintilla of evidence – apart from a fictionalisation of public hearing portrayed in a movie - to support [my] contention” that Capt “was put under intense public, NTSB-mandated scrutiny involving non-NTSB people asking him questions.”
The NTSB hearing was public. Capt S was required to attend. He was required to answer, publicly, questions asked by, among others, people who were not from the NSTB. The hearings were the subject of reporting by the media. Those are things I call “facts” and my understanding is that relevant facts count as “evidence”.
You also say Capt S “was most assuredly not “cross-examined” under any normal meaning of the phrase”. Well, my meaning includes a witness being compelled to answer questions even if they may be embarrassing or adverse to the witness's interests or credibility. That was, in effect, the position into which Capt S was put. He was – literally – a ‘witness’ called to give evidence to the NTSB’s ‘Office of Administrative Law Judges’, and had to answer questions that could have been embarrassing or adverse to his interests or credibility. The fact that he now lives happily ever after and the process did not turn out to have had any of those effects doesn’t alter the nature of the process when it's happening.
But let’s assume I'm wrong in all of that. I’m sure the OP would appreciate it – as would I – if you applied your formidable intellect and research skills to answering the OP’s questions. Do you have a view on the answers?