Prospector 95% of your post is a quote from somebody else - the burden of which is to support the essence of what I acknowledged in my post when I said:
It was subsequently found that the evidence did not support the use of the word “orchestrated” (and I have no argument with this finding).
However, contrary to the comments in your citation there could have been no successful appeal had the word “orchestrated” not been used (and a fine imposed). Again from memory, the relevant Appeal court finding was essentially based on the fact that the judge did not properly elucidate the grounds on which he based his conclusion that there had been “orchestration”. I think the evidence does indeed confirm that the judge failed to do so (though I also note that a close reading of the evidence at the inquiry does suggest that, for some reason, the approach and testimony of some witnesses was not entirely consistent from the beginning to the end of the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Again the supplementary testimony from the Judge’s book adds useful perspective to this matter. After all it is direct testimony from somebody who was there listening to the evidence!).
I do not accept that there was ever a finding that Mahon “exceeded his terms of reference” and would be obliged if you could direct me to something other than a second hand opinion on this matter (in other words a statement or finding to this effect by the Appeal Court, or Privy Council).
The author from whom you quote claims that the Office of Air Accidents Investigation report “remains the sole official account” and says that it “has never been officially challenged”. I was rather under the impression that a Royal Commission of Inquiry was both official and that it presented findings that challenged that of the Air Accidents Investigation report. I think that it is a palpable fact that both reports exist as official documents, with findings that are contradictory. I suspect the reason that you claim to the contrary is that you have elevated to the status of fact the opinions of the author from whom you quote.
That authors attempt to use the Appeals Court and Privy Council findings to, in effect, argue that all of the findings of the Royal Commission were overthrown is an interesting argumentative strategy. While it appears to appeal to you, it does little for me. It certainly does little to advance our understanding as to why (a) this accident occurred, and (b) how to explain the (genuinely) intriguing puzzle as to how the evidence can be (convincingly) marshalled to support two utterly contradictory findings.
If we better understood (b) we would have advanced considerably in accident investigation. To that end it serves no purpose to treat those who support the point of view we like as wise and wonderful and to denegrate as misguided, or worse, those who support the contrary point of view. Regrettably much of the debate around this accident has tended to to head in that direction.