Resolution
I think that part of the rationale behind someone not just saying 'oh bu99er this, get on and fly them' is one of the central aspects of holding an airworthiness responsibility. If you get to the point of having the evidence to say 'stop doing x', either by limitation (and for the sake of politics I've seen some strict limitations) or by grounding aircraft, you actually have to have an idea of how you are going to get yourself out of that hole. This occurs for at least 2 reasons: 1. You're going to have to justify why you took such extreme action to someone with long trousers. 2. You have to know when you have got yourself to the point where you know (ie have the evidence) that the problem is resolved. So, for Mk 3, this resolution is F2F. It's pointless getting hung up on the history (whatever your viewpoint, it's happened), the focus needs to be on the resolution.
oh, t_s, "the MAR was signed off by someone who was aware of the risks" - you'd like to think so, but I know of at least one situation where this wasn't the case because of dilution of opinion, rather than acceptance of the truth, as things went up the chain. A bit like that story about a crock of **** becoming policy (wish I could remember it all).
sw